Is the fact gay people can get fired simply for being gay worthy of being brought up

[dsc]

at a Presidential debate?

GERGEN: The other question is, you know, if you're talking about whether you're going to have somebody fire a gay employee or not or whether you believe in abortion, that has so little to do with what with the responsibilities of the next president has to deal with. Why in the world are we getting wrapped up in questions like that when the next president has to deal with—we're trying to overhaul our schools so we can keep up with China and India. That's a more central question.

They spent so much of their time and energy on these kind of value questions that are sort of signals to conservatives. “I'm as conservative as you want and I'll be OK on this.” But they didn't give the country, I thought, and kind of hard understandings of where are they going in the wake of the Bush administration.

end of quote

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051007.shtml

With all due respect I don't recall any complaints from the likes of Gergen when President Bush spent several minutes discussing marriage equality in 2004's State of the Union. It was perfectly fine to bad mouth gays in the guise of saving traditional marriage from a pulpit of the Capital, a Capital that might well have been saved by a gay man it should have been noted. But now, it is unseemly. Now we have more important things to talk about. Could it be because the people actually agree with gays on this? Could it be that Republicans end up looking like the bigots they are when they say it is OK to fire people for being gay? We couldn't have that, now could we? No, we have more important things to talk about.

[Madspirit]

1. k&r my friend...n/t

[terrya]

2. Oh, gosh gee...it's only our lives and all.

Yeah, nothing to think about there, eh? :sarcasm:

Fuck you, David Gergen. I'll bet this homophobic piece of shit was one of the ones pushing President Clinton into supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.

[slackmaster]

3. Proud to say I live in a state where that would not be legal

:hi:

[varun]

5. Repug candidates should be put in a spot

and asked about gay employment discrimination, dont ask dont tell, hate crimes against gays, and criminalization of gay sex.

On these issues, repugs look so far to the right, that they will alienate many voters.

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[HockeyMom]

6. Flashback to 1978

I used to work for a Fortune 500 corporation in NYC. There was a top salesman there who was openly gay. He talked all the time about what restaurant, what trip, etc., etc, he and his SO were going to. He made no effort to hide who he was. He was also the TOP PRODUCING salesperson in the coporation. This was 30 years ago. The Board of Directors could care less what this man did on this personal time. All they cared about was the MONEY he was making for this corporation.

Why the hell are we having to deal with this NOW? If somebody is doing their job and a good employee, who cares what they do in their personal lives???????

Sometimes I feel like I am in a time wrap. Instead of moving into the 21st Century, we have time warped into the 14th Century.

[dsc]

7. We can't all be the top in our field

which is why we need the law. Even if I were the best teacher on earth, and I am not, there are still tons of districts which would outright refuse to hire me.

[HockeyMom]

8. I do not know where you live

All I can say is that it isn't like that everywhere. It wasn't in my daughters school. The gay teachers were very open about who they were. I speak from the experience of a parent with a lesbian daughter. Our local HS participated in the Day of Silence.

It doesn't have to be that way, not if the PARENTS take a stand against discrimination.

[dsc]

9. North Carolina

I am not specificly protected by my district but there is a harassment policy which bans calling people out for being gay so I guess it is sort of like don't ask don't tell.

[Deja Q]

14. Just like celebrities and sports figures. Make enough money, you can do whatever you like;

with nobody complaining. They are above the law.

This is NOT to compare homosexuality with committing crimes. But the same scenario happens to the same sorts of people whose underlings are typically fanatical nitwits who think they should have say over what everybody else* does.


* except those above them who know how to handle the money. Oh, then a person can be anything they deem objectionable; all they want is their cut. Which reminds me... :think:

[MuseRider]

10. Gays and women?

Nope, doesn't matter at all. :nuke:

Egads, there is just no end to the stupidity and the injustice.

[populistdriven]

11. This should be framed as "Employers have to right to hire and fire in a right to work state like FL

for example. But there are federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Provided job performance is not an issue, should religion and sexual preference be added to that list?"

Because otherwise they will squirm out of the question.

[BR_Parkway]

16. "Currently it is legal in most states for a gay employer to fire a heterosexual employee

strictly on the basis of their orientation. <Senator, Congressman, Candidate> what would you do if elected to prevent that type of discrimination?"

[populistdriven]

18. Perfect!!! nt

:)

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Another K and another R

[Deja Q]

13. Because, thanks to oil and America's roadway infrastructure,

it'll cost less to dump America entirely.

:tinfoilhat:


And hopefully :sarcasm: too.


I too want to know why so few politicians give a shit about education reform. Or any other form of reform. I do not believe for one attosecond Americans give a rat's butt about Iraq. Even Americans are not THAT myopic.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Maybe if that question was asked in a different way

What if a company that employs only gay people fires a heterosexual because of their orientation?

Having NO laws for discrimination against sexual orientation could produce THAT scenario.

And I'd bet would have been a far more interesting question.

[H2O Man]

17. Right.

I like some of the things that Gergen says on a number of issues. But he is absolutely wrong on this one. A person doesn't have to be gay to appreciate the significance of these issues: as a (retired) union worker, I find the idea that an employer can fire a co-worker because they are gay is as dangerous to everyone in the work force as if they could be fired for race, religion, political beliefs, etc. As a member of the Human Family, I find it is an unacceptable form of hatred and prejudice. The republican party has used this type of hatred as part of their platform just as surely as David Duke has used racial hatred as his platform. It would be wrong for any candidate who is running for national office to avoid making comments -- and indeed commitments -- to make this type of discrimination illegal.