Special preference to homosexuals

[Oh Hamburgers!]

ENDA would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on his or her sexual orientation or "gender identity." Such acts would be considered crimes subject to severe penalties. For a list of the co-sponsors of ENDA, Click here .

And that's bad why exactly? You should never hire or fire someone based on their sexual orientation in the first place, that would be like firing someone for being a woman, or hiring someone for being a man.

why not. what has sexual orientation got to do with business? It doesn't even belong in the workplace. So why do they need a special protection.

I would fire them as well as any hetero that was practicing their sexual preference in my business in a heartbeat. their supposed to be there making me money not worrying about heir sex escapades.

From my perspective, I don't see any special treatment given to homosexuals here, just a reafirmation that the choice to hire or fire them can't rely on their sexual preference. If homosexuals got special treatment when it comes to getting a job or not, I would think it would be wrong. I think the bill is designed to make sure that homosexuals AREN'T treated differently from heterosexuals in terms of being given the opportunity for a job, but I don't think that businesses couldn't fire them for normal reasons. But yeah, you're right, sexual preference doesn't have to do with business, I think that is the bill's point.

Now of course there is going to be some homosexual who takes the bill too far, and gets fired for doing a bad job at work, but will make the claim that it was because he/she was a homosexual, but I don't think that that would be a common thing. I would hope.

[TheoMike]

It is a bad bill, but the reality is homosexuals, who sadly feel the need to define themselves by a perverse sexual practice, do get special treatment continually. Entire bills are written for them, laws get passed for them and the English language has changed to suit a small minority of deviant men and women. Talk about an upside down society. I quite imagine that those of you in your 20's and under were put off by my use of the word "deviant," because your worldview has been shaped by public school system with a definite pro-homosexual agenda. That's how far society has fallen.

Anyway, a private business should be allowed to hire and fire as they please without having to answer to the government.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

It is a bad bill, but the reality is homosexuals, who sadly feel the need to define themselves by a perverse sexual practice, do get special treatment continually. Entire bills are written for them, laws get passed for them and the English language has changed to suit a small minority of deviant men and women. Talk about an upside down society. I quite imagine that those of you in your 20's and under were put off by my use of the word "deviant," because your worldview has been shaped by public school system with a definite pro-homosexual agenda. That's how far society has fallen.

Anyway, a private business should be allowed to hire and fire as they please without having to answer to the government.

So you would advocate private business having the right to hire only whites, or only men to the business? It would be ok to require women to wear bikinis to work if they want to stay employed, from a "rights" perspective?

Similarly, if private business should be allowed to hire and fire as they please, you would respect the rights of a business to refuse hiring christians?

I would argue that if homosexuals were given equal right in terms of being hired or fired in business today, there wouldn't be a need for a bill like this. But the fact this is brought up tells me that homosexuals are being discriminated in business based SOLELY on their sexual preference. Now, according to your arguement business should have the RIGHT to do this, but from a Christian perspective, SHOULD they do this? Is this a good, bad, or neutral action? I would say it is a bad one, an un-christian perspective. We should not discriminate, even if we have the right or not.

I guess I feel that from a Christian perspective, this bill should be supported. But if you want to stick to business rights to determine your opinion, that's fine too, as long as you make sure to take it both ways, and not just use it as a tool to oppose homosexuality in general.

[Burning_Ember]

(Posting in general)

This bill specifically makes exemptions for religious organizations and the wording is also specific in that Heterosexuals, as well as Homosexuals cannot be discriminated against when hiring. Both/any orientation is equally protected under the law.

I keep hearing the whole "homosexuals have special rights" thing. Show me the text in ANY bill in Canada or America (or anywhere else really) that specifically provides rights to homosexuals that it doesn't to heterosexuals. I think you'll be searching rather unsuccesfully.

Besides, if your employer was gay, and he fired you because you were straight, I think you wouldn't be very happy about that. Now its just the same for vice a versa now.

[Guest LadyC]

burger, don't look now but your youth is showing.

had there actually been someone truly discriminated against based on their sexual preference, it would have been all over the news nonstop 24/7 for months and months on end.

but the most likely reason this bill has been initiated is not because a gay was discriminated against in the workplace, but because a gay felt like the EEO bill of rights and protections was discriminatory since it didn't specifically include homosexuals. thus gay rights activists took up the cause to force a new law that again puts them in the media spotlight... regardless of the fact that other laws already protect them in this manner. as usual, it simply isn't good enough for them.

by the way, your bikini-clad employee uniform doesn't fit in with the rest of your scenarios.

[Guest LadyC]

i would like to add something further. an employer (or a potential one) has no need to know someone's sexual preference. in some instances it is impossible to avoid, particularly if an employee has a family.

if i were a business owner and someone came in who felt the necessity to flaunt their homosexuality, i would not hire them. what they do behind closed doors is none of an employers business. what they make apparent to all of the clientelle, however, is very much the employer's business.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

burger, don't look now but your youth is showing.

had there actually been someone truly discriminated against based on their sexual preference, it would have been all over the news nonstop 24/7 for months and months on end.

but the most likely reason this bill has been initiated is not because a gay was discriminated against in the workplace, but because a gay felt like the EEO bill of rights and protections was discriminatory since it didn't specifically include homosexuals. thus gay rights activists took up the cause to force a new law that again puts them in the media spotlight... regardless of the fact that other laws already protect them in this manner. as usual, it simply isn't good enough for them.

by the way, your bikini-clad employee uniform doesn't fit in with the rest of your scenarios.

If there is no change with this bill and previous bills, why are people so upset about this? If this is already in place in country, it's basically a moot point.

My bikini-clad example goes back to business rights. If someone is allowed to hire and fire based on race or sexual preference, why couldn't they hire or fire based on apparel, height, weight, accent, etc?

[TheoMike]

(Posting in general)

This bill specifically makes exemptions for religious organizations and the wording is also specific in that Heterosexuals, as well as Homosexuals cannot be discriminated against when hiring. Both/any orientation is equally protected under the law.

I keep hearing the whole "homosexuals have special rights" thing. Show me the text in ANY bill in Canada or America (or anywhere else really) that specifically provides rights to homosexuals that it doesn't to heterosexuals. I think you'll be searching rather unsuccesfully.

Besides, if your employer was gay, and he fired you because you were straight, I think you wouldn't be very happy about that. Now its just the same for vice a versa now.

Most of the sexual discrimination laws in America written in the past 20 years or so have come about as a result of the homosexual agenda.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

but why is that a bad thing?

just because they have pushed sexual discrimination reform doesn't mean that it is giving them special rights over others. It could just as easily mean that they are getting the SAME rights as others.

[Burning_Ember]

(Posting in general)

This bill specifically makes exemptions for religious organizations and the wording is also specific in that Heterosexuals, as well as Homosexuals cannot be discriminated against when hiring. Both/any orientation is equally protected under the law.

I keep hearing the whole "homosexuals have special rights" thing. Show me the text in ANY bill in Canada or America (or anywhere else really) that specifically provides rights to homosexuals that it doesn't to heterosexuals. I think you'll be searching rather unsuccesfully.

Besides, if your employer was gay, and he fired you because you were straight, I think you wouldn't be very happy about that. Now its just the same for vice a versa now.

Most of the sexual discrimination laws in America written in the past 20 years or so have come about as a result of the homosexual agenda.

I'd be curious as to your thoughts on Feminism (by that, I mean a movement for equal rights for women,) and what the law should be.