# GOP sure gets dumber by the moment



## Gadawg73 (Nov 7, 2013)

Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military. 
Having voted Republican most of the time over the last 40 years I see this as the path to no where again for the GOP.
They are more interested in pleasing the religious right than winning elections. 
Only a big tent Republican party wins. The bull shit "well, we need to stick to our strict conservative base" is great but it loses elections.
How much dumber can they get?


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 7, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> How much dumber can they get?



They could begin to behave like Democrats.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

GaDawg73 has a legitimate beef about this.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 7, 2013)

hunarcy said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How much dumber can they get?
> ...



They are behaving like Democrats.
Just the other end of the spectrum.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 7, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
> Having voted Republican most of the time over the last 40 years I see this as the path to no where again for the GOP.
> They are more interested in pleasing the religious right than winning elections.
> Only a big tent Republican party wins. The bull shit "well, we need to stick to our strict conservative base" is great but it loses elections.
> How much dumber can they get?



what the hell does it have to with their strict conservative base
Maybe they are just STICKING to their principals?, or they should give up that too so they buy votes like the Democrats all over people (homosexuals) who are now more special than others in this country evidently..
why have two parties. just go to one rule party and government...the hell with it all


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

The thuggistic TeaPoCrap Party of the far right is not the Republican Party.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 7, 2013)

Yup......we've been warning you idiots about this for years......and we're the dumb ones.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 7, 2013)

. . . because the mainstream Republican Party has, but never will again, given far too much weight to the far right.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 7, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
> ...



I believe you meant principles.
First you have to show where anything in the bill mandates by statute that homosexuals "are more special than others in this country"
But keep up the gay boogeyman show as you must get off on getting your ass kicked every election.
I want to win for fiscal conservatism.
You are stuck on stupid making the gay boogeyman issue a priority in elections.
At best, what is it on your list of priorities?
137th or 138th?
I would rather us focus on the other 136 in front of it than spend one second attempting to leave gay folks out of equal rights in the workplace.
Tired of losing because of fuddy duddy busy body mother hen know it alls scared of gay people getting equal rights.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 7, 2013)

The "strict conservative base" under Barry Goldwater stuck up their middle finger and publicly said "FUCK YOU" to the religious right. 
Back when Republicans had balls.
They are now a bunch of milk weak pussies waving Bibles around.


----------



## Vox (Nov 7, 2013)

Gadawg73, you seriously do not understand why this non-issue miraculously appeared right now?

seriously?


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 7, 2013)

'GOP sure gets dumber by the moment '

How else can they catch up with the Democrats? It is a race to the bottom being won by the fleetest of feet.


----------



## Vox (Nov 7, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The "strict conservative base" under Barry Goldwater stuck up their middle finger and publicly said "FUCK YOU" to the religious right.
> Back when Republicans had balls.
> They are now a bunch of milk weak pussies waving Bibles around.



if Republicans have balls they should show the middle finger FUCK YOU to this non-issue Senate bill and get to the real issues on a table.

Boehner should just play Harry Reid.

without ANY comment, or use Gingrich method


----------



## Vox (Nov 7, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> 'GOP sure gets dumber by the moment '
> 
> How else can they catch up with the Democrats? It is a race to the bottom being won by the fleetest of feet.



it will sure as hell be dumb if they take this bait.

put in in the drawer - for better times.

we have more important problems to solve.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 7, 2013)

Vox said:


> Gadawg73, you seriously do not understand why this non-issue miraculously appeared right now?
> 
> seriously?



You seriously need to read my first sentence.
POLITICS is what brought it back and it is a way to take another jab at the GOP as they know the gay boogeyman issue is alive still there.


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 7, 2013)

Hatch made it through his tea party primary challenge so he's not afraid of blow back at the moment.


----------



## Vox (Nov 7, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73, you seriously do not understand why this non-issue miraculously appeared right now?
> ...



sorry, read in a hurry


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
> Having voted Republican most of the time over the last 40 years I see this as the path to no where again for the GOP.
> They are more interested in pleasing the religious right than winning elections.
> Only a big tent Republican party wins. The bull shit "well, we need to stick to our strict conservative base" is great but it loses elections.
> How much dumber can they get?



Again, if the Plutocrats didn't try to fool the dumb, bible thumping Christians into thinking they were working for their limited world view, they wouldn't get any votes. 

The Religious Right is all that keeps the GOP alive. 

If they ran on, "The Rich are being taken care of and suck it Peasents", they'd get about 20% of the vote.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 8, 2013)

.

Seems to me the Tea Party is making two mistakes right now:

First, they're too easily sucked into the echo chamber that so damaged them in 2012, all of them sounding *exactly* like Levin and Hannity and Limbaugh, 100% purist 100% of the time, which simply turns people who might vote for them off.  They can "stick to their principles" all they want, but they're going to be doing it while not in power.  If that's okay with them, fine.

Second, the notion of getting elected, proving themselves, and then slowly moving to the right is evidently absolutely foreign to them, even though that's the tactic that the Democrats have taken for freakin' decades.  Why in the world is this so difficult for them to grasp?  I don't know if they really don't see this or are just too full of themselves to admit it.

100% purist makes for great talk radio screamers and bumper stickers, but it will not win elections.  If you don't want to win, you certainly have the formula down, that's for sure.  

Yes, I know, no one asked.

.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
> ...



The Religious Right is more of a drag than an asset.

Now that you mention it, if the Dems didn't have the media propping their incompetent asses up they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I believe you meant principles.
> First you have to show where anything in the bill mandates by statute that homosexuals "are more special than others in this country"
> But keep up the gay boogeyman show as you must get off on getting your ass kicked every election.
> I want to win for fiscal conservatism.
> ...



I understand the frustration, I do, but like yourself, not all republicans are stuck on the social issues. 

I think that there are significant amounts of voters in both party's who are fiscally conservative, but either they have to put up with the social conservatives on the far right, or the PC crowd to the far left which is equally frightening. 

It's Important to vote for the best candidate, regardless of party. Most folks don't, though - they tend not to even vote in their best interest. 

I think that social issues are far down the list of what I want the government to decide. I care much more about matters of money, privacy, freedom and the right to post non-stop on political message boards.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Whining about the media is like whining about the Refs... It's usually the sign of poor game play.  

The Religious Right is all that props up the GOP these days.  It's why they spend so much time talking about bullshit like gay marriage and abortion.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



The problem is the far rightwingers that refuse to vote for anyone who's wishy-washy on abortion. All a dick like Obama has to do to take votes from a Republican is claim that he at one time was supporting abortion. After that he's toast. 

It's gotten pretty bad where everything you do or didn't do can be used against you by lying pricks like Obama that seem to be able to find out everything about you. 

NSA, thanks alot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> [
> 
> The problem is the far rightwingers that refuse to vote for anyone who's wishy-washy on abortion. All a dick like Obama has to do to take votes from a Republican is claim that he at one time was supporting abortion. After that he's toast.
> 
> ...



First you are blaming the media, now you are blaming the NSA. 

How about blaming yourselves. 

You guys knew Romney was a loser.  You rejected him in 2008 and most of you really didn't want him in 2012, but you nominated him anyway.  

And then he made some stupid statement insulting half the electorate, and you wonder why he lost?


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 8, 2013)

so the new motto is, pretend you're something you're not only to win

wonderful, we already have that in most of this government and look where we are


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 8, 2013)

The Democrats are playing them

Set up dmonstrations of how out of touch Republicans are from mainstream American thought. Show America how in 2013 you still think Homosexuals are the boogeyman

Democrats need to do the same thing on immigration reform and background checks.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 8, 2013)

so you see people, this is all a GAME...If it includes your lives what the hell

why homosexuals would like being used this way is beyond me, but Democrats use blacks, Hispanics, women, children, and their wails of a war on everyone etc.... so why not I guess


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> so you see people, this is all a GAME...If it includes your lives what the hell
> 
> why homosexuals would like being used this way is beyond me, but they use blacks, Hispanics, women, etc.... so why not I guess



You mean why would the gay community not vote for people who villified them and denied them rights and instead vote for folks who've stuck up for them. 

If Politics is about getting what you want, here's what Gays have gotten under Obama. 

16 states now allow gay marriage.
DOMA- GONE!!!
DADT- GONE!!!

Discrimination against gays has passed the Senate. If the House grew a brain, they'd let it pass.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Democrats are playing them
> 
> Set up dmonstrations of how out of touch Republicans are from mainstream American thought. Show America how in 2013 you still think Homosexuals are the boogeyman
> 
> Democrats need to do the same thing on immigration reform and background checks.



Yup, playing games.

I don't think the GOP has any choice in this. Democrats are totally incompetent, but they win elections by fooling voters into thinking that the GOP is a bunch of evil rich guys. 

Well, fact is, Democrats are a bunch of really evil rich guys and to top it off, they can't grab their ass with both hands, but at least they have a better image.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Democrats are playing them
> ...



Maybe if the GOP stopped ACTING like a bunch of evil Rich Guys, the Democrats wouldn't have such an easy time of it.  

Quick question, when was the last time the GOP put the interests of workers and consumers above that of the rich and big corporations... 

I'll wait.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> The problem is the far rightwingers that refuse to vote for anyone who's wishy-washy on abortion. All a dick like Obama has to do to take votes from a Republican is claim that he at one time was supporting abortion. After that he's toast.
> 
> It's gotten pretty bad where everything you do or didn't do can be used against you by lying pricks like Obama that seem to be able to find out everything about you.
> 
> NSA, thanks alot.



Well, no - It's not anywhere near as simple as that. 

Most people don't even know enough about the political process or the candidates to even make a well reasoned decision when it comes to pulling the lever. 

When a guy like Romney gets the nod, he has so much sucking up to do that he becomes a watered-down version of himself and folks have no clue where he stands, His Romneycare was one of the models for Obamacare, but rather then slap his party and say "look, it really isn't that bad, quit making a big deal out of nothing!" he rushes to trash it.

If he had just ran on what he really thought was best for America, he might have had a chance.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

Vox said:


> Gadawg73, you seriously do not understand why this non-issue miraculously appeared right now?
> 
> seriously?



While it's obvious why the Dems brought it up, it's not a non issue to the people living in those 30 states where they can be fired simply for being gay.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

YAWN.............

Liberals practicing their campaign articles for the next election.  How the Tea Party and Conservatives hate everyone and play the same ole boring BS they always do.  Flood it into their bought off media and slander everyone they can to hold on to power.

I do not believe in Political Correctness, nor holding back what I think the Gay BS in this country.  I do not believe it is natural, and quite frankly think it is disgusting.  Most people in this country believe the same.  That's it.  Period.  

I simply don't care what you think of me for saying that.  I will circular file all of your answers back calling me names or the same BS you types always do.  That's my opinion, and it will stay the same no matter.

There are a lot of Americans who feel the same.  Should have been obvious to you when Prop 8 passed in Cali.  Which the Gay movement overturned via the legal system.  

Final note.  If I own a business and don't want to hire a gay person, who are you to tell me I must hire them, especially if it's against my beliefs.  Nuff said, now talk your same ole trash talk.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is the far rightwingers that refuse to vote for anyone who's wishy-washy on abortion. All a dick like Obama has to do to take votes from a Republican is claim that he at one time was supporting abortion. After that he's toast.
> ...



Every voter has their core voting issue. I was speaking about the Christian fundamentalists. You're talking about the fiscal conservatives. 

The problem is right-wing voters have core principles and the left has people that can be easily manipulated into accepting just about anything. Fact is, both can be easily manipulated when a candidate chooses to be totally disingenuous. A world class liar like Obama, who doesn't seem to have any moral compass, can take advantage of these folks without batting an eye.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > so you see people, this is all a GAME...If it includes your lives what the hell
> ...



Boehner will not allow House members to go on record of being for it or against it


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:[28]

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


*comment*

As I stated, I'm not alone by a long shot on my beliefs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

boehner's an idiot.  

He needs to pass it and get it behind them.  History is completely against them at this point on this issue, the sooner you get past it the better.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73, you seriously do not understand why this non-issue miraculously appeared right now?
> ...



Which states are those?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
> 
> Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:[28]
> 
> ...



No, I'm sure there are a lot of people clinging to 19th century views on marriage.  

I have to ask the question. 


two gay dudes get married.  How does that impact your life in any way shape or form.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 8, 2013)

They have to take the heat off Ofailcare so they pull their standard games out of their ass, homosexuals...

they used Blacks all up, they still have some use for Hispanics, but they figured the homosexuals won't mind being used again

so time to waste taxpayers money and vote in another law on top of the 100 others on them


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



It's a breathless attempt by desperate Democrats to bring back their voters. 

They need something to counter the ruin they're bringing upon us.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



How many gays get terminated from work for being gay?  Yeah, none.  It is legislation geared to trial lawyers.
You really think fags aren't going to sue when they are let go?  What reality do you live in again?
Flush this piece of crap legislation.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

Mennonite Couple Refuses to Host Same-Sex Wedding; Files Lawsuit Against Iowa Civil Rights Commission

A Mennonite couple that owns an art gallery in Iowa has filed suit against the state's Civil Rights Commission over being threatened with punitive action for refusing to host a same-sex wedding on their property.

Görtz Haus Gallery, a former church turned art gallery facility, filed a lawsuit Monday against the commission in Polk County District Court.

"The Odgaards welcome all customers into the Gallery, regardless of their race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability," reads the suit in part.

"The Odgaards may be exposed to financial punishment and other forms of official coercion for refusing to abandon their religious convictions to comply with the ICRC's dictates."


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> boehner's an idiot.
> 
> He needs to pass it and get it behind them.  History is completely against them at this point on this issue, the sooner you get past it the better.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


Our state is one.
Why shouldn't gays be fired for being gay?  But if they're doing a good and appropriate job, who would want to fire them in the first place?  Good employees are hard to find.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog

In an unusual legal maneuver, Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against a florist in Richland, Washington, who last month refused to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus."

As The Stranger reported at the time, Arlene's Flowers owner Barronelle Stutzman told Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed that she refused to do business with them&#8212;or "participate in the wedding," as she called it&#8212;because she believed as a Christian "that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Filed in Benton County Superior Court, the lawsuit (.pdf) alleges that when Stutzman refused to provide goods or services on the basis of sexual orientation in a place of public accommodation, she was violating the state's anti-discrimination law and was, therefore, also violating laws designed to protect consumers. As a business that sells wedding flowers to opposite-sex couples, the AG's office argues, it must provide the same wedding services to gay couples.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> They have to take the heat off Ofailcare so they pull their standard games out of their ass, homosexuals...
> 
> they used Blacks all up, they still have some use for Hispanics, but they figured the homosexuals won't mind being used again
> 
> so time to waste taxpayers money and vote in another law on top of the 100 others on them



Let's raise the minimum wage..........


----------



## TooTall (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The "strict conservative base" under Barry Goldwater stuck up their middle finger and publicly said "FUCK YOU" to the religious right.
> Back when Republicans had balls.
> They are now a bunch of milk weak pussies waving Bibles around.



Boehner is right!  Nothing but a gold mine for out of work lawyers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> [
> 
> How many gays get terminated from work for being gay?  Yeah, none.  It is legislation geared to trial lawyers.
> You really think fags aren't going to sue when they are let go?  What reality do you live in again?
> Flush this piece of crap legislation.



Girl I worked with was fired for being gay.  She worked for this company for 14 years.  Was promoted from assembly to line lead to quality inspector.  

Then she showed up at the company holiday party with her life partner, who was wearing a man's suit just SO NO ONE MISSED THE POINT.  

They fired her a month later.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

TooTall said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The "strict conservative base" under Barry Goldwater stuck up their middle finger and publicly said "FUCK YOU" to the religious right.
> ...



Being right isn't good enough these days.

Boehner has very little political sense.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
> ...



I don't believe in it.  I think it's an attack on the morals of society.  So I oppose it.  That's it.  I don't care about your how does it change your life BS.  

I'm not alone as already stated.  Many refuse to accept it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
And I think you're lying, just for the record.  There was no such person.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog
> 
> In an unusual legal maneuver, Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against a florist in Richland, Washington, who last month refused to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus."
> 
> ...



Not seeing a problem here. 

This is settled law. You can't refuse to do business with someone because you don't like them. 

A business is a public accommedation.  

If she refused to sell flowers to an interracial couple because of her religious beliefs, would you take the same position?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog
> ...


If she refused to sell flowers to a neo Nazi would you support that?  You can choose to do business with anyone you want, with certain exceptions.  "We reserve the right" is often spelled out.


----------



## TooTall (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Harry Reid has been doing that for Senate Democrats for several years.  Payback is a good thing!


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog
> ...



Nope.............

Because it's a man and a woman.............Again you justify that they MUST DO SO, EVEN IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN IT..................ideology..........

It's their business.  They should have the right to refuse customers if it's against their beliefs.  Most of these issues only arrive with small business by the way.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Lets see here Joe.. When debating gun control you talk about a bullet that passed close by with a suicide. Healthcare you had some kind of real world experience as well. And now, someone you know has experienced issues being gay.

You hang in a strange crowd or?????

-Geaux


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 8, 2013)

On the last post................I would not support the law suit for them refusing that service, which is what you are getting at.

GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, and leave them alone.


----------



## Pauli007001 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You said you worked in insurance ?

Insurance underwriting is done on an assembly line?
You're a liar !!!
How many times have you been proven a liar?
Are you not ashamed?
Or are you proud to be a liar.
Your Obamacult demands you be more like the obamessiah.
So you lie , religiously!


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Yeah, why is that? Why not just let it up for a vote? What's he so afraid of?


----------



## Pauli007001 (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



He also works for an insurance company that has an assembly line.........


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nope. Has nothing to do with Dem voters and everything to do with another picture being painted of an out of touch House of Representatives. Of course, they couldn't paint the picture if the House GOP wasn't so out of touch and out of step. 

Poll: Big support for anti-discrimination law


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well, I can see why this would be bad for my business

-Geaux


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

Memo to Senate Republicans: Your constituents want you to vote for ENDA


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

Amazing the ignorance of the hard right on law suits.
They believe that you just file suit and a jury awards a million dollars.
Workplace law suits are the absolute hardest just to get past summary judgment before a Federal Judge which is where these potential cases would be and getting a jury to award a verdict is extremely difficult as juror pools are made from voting lists and then voir dire allowsa striking potential seated jurors as the attorneys get to ask questions before picking and no attorney gets these cases unless they front all the expenses and then get a % as a contingency fee. Add in that if there WAS evidence of discrimination company lawyers see that and seek remedies fair to both parties.
Now tell me what attorney in their right mind takes these cases, much less the absurd claim that unemployed attorneys would as plaintiff cases take tens of thousands of dollars just to get to trial, if that attorney did not have SOLID evidence that there was discrimination based on sexual preference.
Yes, sorry about that folks as now you can not fire the blacks you don't want and now the gay folks you do not want. 
But as usual there is always an excuse to accept discrimination of others as now gay folk are the new ******* and the only ones left to pick on.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal

*1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)*
This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the universitys official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howes termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmonts board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.

*2. Vandy Beth Glenn (Georgia)*
In 2005, Vandy Beth Glenn began working as the legislative editor of the Georgia General Assembly while still presenting as a man, Glenn Morrison. Glenn was fired in October 2007 for revealing to her supervisor that she planned to transition from male to female. Her boss, legislative counsel Sewell Brumby, allegedly told her that her gender transition and presentation of herself as a woman would be seen as immoral, could not happen appropriately in the workplace in which Glenn worked and would make other employees uncomfortable. This story has a happy ending, however: Glenn sued, and U.S. District Court Judge Story ruled that she was illegally fired based on sex discrimination. The judge ordered that she be compensated for wages during the appeals process. Finally, in December 2011, the appeals court ruled that she should be allowed to return to work.

*3. Michael Carney (Massachusetts)*
This police officer from Springfield, MA was one of the witnesses in the Congressional hearing on the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) after Congressmen Barney Frank (D-MA) and Richard Neil (D-MA) asked him to testify. He initially left his job as a police officer due to the stress of remaining closeted, but his former employers refused to hire him again after he came out. Carney fought for years to be allowed to work again, a battle that he eventually won. His success highlights the struggles others still face, as he pointed out to Midweek Politics when he said that if he was a federal officer, or didnt live in Massachusetts, he probably wouldnt have been allowed to continue working.

*4. Jodi OBrien (Wisconsin)*
OBrien, a sociology professor at Seattle University who is openly a lesbian and writes about sexuality, was originally offered a job as dean of one of Marquette Universitys colleges. In May 2010, her offer was rescinded. The Roman Catholic and Jesuit-run University told the New York Times that she lacked the ability to represent the Marquette mission and identity. University President Rev. Robert A. Wild argued that the choice not to hire OBrien wasnt due to her sexuality, but rather to her academic writing, in which he found strongly negative statements about marriage and family. OBrien has written extensively about the topic of gay marriage; if this isnt discrimination based on sexual orientation, its certainly discrimination based on beliefs about sexual orientation. Is there a substantial difference between the two?

*5. Peter TerVeer (District of Columbia)*
This case is playing out as we speak. Until April 2012, TerVeer was a management analyst for the Library of Congress. He claims that he was harassed and fired because of his sexual orientation, and he has filed a discrimination complaint. WJLA reported that he received emails in 2009 from his boss referencing bible passages that speak against homosexuality, and that he stated that as a homosexual I could never succeed because it was against Gods law. The trouble apparently all started when TerVeer liked a page on Facebook called Two Dads.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



I think you can make a better case to not do business with a Nazi if you can honestly claim that you would be associated with their hateful beliefs.  Just like print shops can refuse to run literature for candidates they don't agree with.  

Sexual orientation falls more into line with race or religion on discrimination issues.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> Well, I can see why this would be bad for my business
> 
> -Geaux



Yes, that would be bad for your business if he came in dressed like that.  

But I would assume your business has a dress code and a code of conduct and rules about sexual harrassment that he'd be in violation of if he did.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

True patriots seek to protect the rights and freedoms of those they may despise the most.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)




----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> [
> 
> You said you worked in insurance ?
> 
> ...



No, I did NOT say I worked in insurance. 

I said that the insurance company that underwrote my company at my last job (a packaging distributor) insisted that the company fire people who had serious medical issues.  Which I had in 2007.  

Seriously, Double Wide, if your reading comprehension is this low, I just don't know what do do for you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

One only has to look at the politics of the left to see how this fucks the GOP.
First Obama was against gays in the military and gay marriage.
Then he was for it.
And he will serve 8 years as President and GOP stands to lose the House seats next year.
Imagine the horror show if the scare crow hundred million dollar insider trader dementia laden Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the house.
But the hard right could care less about that. Picking on gay folk is much easier sport and hey now, The Bible says gays are an abomination and shrimp cocktails are sinful.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You mean that I know some of the 10% of the population that is gay, the 25% of people who have had issues with bad insurance, or the percentage of people who know of someone who committed suicide?  

I think that's called life.  Move out of the basement and experience it.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I can see why this would be bad for my business
> ...



So its a lifestyle and not 'who they are'?

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


>



Good luck with that when you get hit with a lawsuit... 

Not sure why you'd turn down money in general.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> One only has to look at the politics of the left to see how this fucks the GOP.
> First Obama was against gays in the military and gay marriage.
> Then he was for it.
> And he will serve 8 years as President and GOP stands to lose the House seats next year.
> ...



Again, picking on the gays is how Bush won in 2004.  

Kind of like George Wallace enjoyed a national career in the 1960's just before there was a tipping point on racial issues.  

Probably going to take a few election cycles before this dog won't hunt.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > One only has to look at the politics of the left to see how this fucks the GOP.
> ...



Wallace was a Democrat btw........

Just sayin......


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal
> 
> *1. Lisa Howe (Tennessee)*
> This former Belmont University soccer coach was fired in December 2010 after she came out to her soccer team that she is a lesbian and announced that she and her partner were expecting their first child. While the universitys official statement at first said that she had resigned, it was soon amended to say that the decision had been mutual, and that her continuing to work for Belmont would not be beneficial to her or the university. Demonstrators protested Howes termination, as she was a highly successful and popular coach, and they called for an official apology, which they never received. Although Belmont had terminated its ties with the Tennessee Baptist Church in 2007, chairman of Belmonts board of trustees Marty Dickens told The Tennessean that, We expect people to commit themselves to high moral and ethical standards within a Christian context.
> ...



Lisa Howe was local so I am sort of familiar with the case.  She was fired (or left or whatever) because she lied on her job application.  Yes, lying will get you fired.
The others probably the same.
But here we see exactly the problem with ENDA: no matter what a gay does, when they get fired it will solely for being gay.  And that will action a suit.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


>



Public accommodation laws are different than employment discrimination laws. 

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service

_Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?
No.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin.  In addition, most courts dont allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.  For example, a person likely cant be refused service due to having a lazy eye. [...]

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?
 There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:


Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customers presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself._


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> True patriots seek to protect the rights and freedoms of those they may despise the most.



You mean like employers?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

One of my long time clients is a gay lawyer in Atlanta, Ga. I met Jimmy years ago when he worked for Alston & Bird, a law firm with offices all over the planet with over 100 lawyers in Atlanta alone. 
Jimmy has been in the Log Cabin Republicans for years and is a fiscal conservative owning part of a nice restaurant in Buckhead.
He tells me young gays are split on politics with many wanting to vote Republican but the gay boogeyman issue holds them back.
Sports fans, this is the deep south here but us red necks can wade through the BS to see that these gay folks really are no different than us other conservatives except they happen to fall in love with people of the same sex and want committed relationships with them.
I guess I am a little different as I played sports for many years at a time when I started very young integration happened. I was fortunate that my mother was from up state NY with Quaker background and she met my Dad before the big war in NC in 1941. The rest is history. 
My point is the gay issue will haunt the GOP and will be used against them until they change their platform. I hate to lose. It is 4th and 1 and I want to run wham it zero on set power split 3 pull inside on ready for 6 and win.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Where's the link for this POS?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Everyone in the south then was a Democrat.
All of them are now Republican. Not saying any of them are bad folks now but that is afact as I was born and raised here in the deep south. County I live in now north of Atlanta was 100% Democrat in 1983 when I moved here. 100% Republican now.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> One of my long time clients is a gay lawyer in Atlanta, Ga. I met Jimmy years ago when he worked for Alston & Bird, a law firm with offices all over the planet with over 100 lawyers in Atlanta alone.
> Jimmy has been in the Log Cabin Republicans for years and is a fiscal conservative owning part of a nice restaurant in Buckhead.
> He tells me young gays are split on politics with many wanting to vote Republican but the gay boogeyman issue holds them back.
> Sports fans, this is the deep south here but us red necks can wade through the BS to see that these gay folks really are no different than us other conservatives except they happen to fall in love with people of the same sex and want committed relationships with them.
> ...



Hey, this is 2013.  No one gives a shit if someone is gay.  They do give a shit if it gets waved in their face or they are told they are mean bigoted hate mongers because they teach their kids that homosexuality is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Gays are among the biggest bigots out there.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > 5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, And The 29 States Where That Is Still Legal
> ...



No you aren't even "sort of" familiar. You heard some right wing spin and latched on like the bigot you are.

Belmont gets it all wrong in ousting woman's soccer coach Lisa Howe


If it was for lying, you'd think the school's official statement on the issue would say so.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Google

type "states you can be fired in for being gay" (enter)


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I was right.  Some editorial in a sports magazine doesnt really trump my familiarity with the case.
And your typical accusations of bigotry illustrate why gays will ultimately be revealed as the bullies and bigots they truly are.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > One only has to look at the politics of the left to see how this fucks the GOP.
> ...



Bush realizes the big mistake he made and his wife and Cheney told him so.
The very people that helped him get elected twice, the hard right, turned on him on the immigration issue.
Bush had a very good bi-partisan immigration billon the table with support to pass.
Then the hard right through Limbaugh and all of right wing talk radio blasted it.
Both our Senators Isackson and Chambliss changed their position on it as they at first supported it.
Same with the gay issue as first time Bush ran he had some support from Log Cabin Republicans and I believe spoke to one group of them.
The come reelection he changed his mind and Laura Bush spoke about that on some talk show after the 2nd term as she supports gay marriage and I suspect Bush did too but politics had the platform oppose it so he had to go with that.

I am so sick of this shit. Arguing about gay folk. Why any straight person that is content with being straight 100% would ever worry about gay folks is crazy to me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

Sure, there are going to be lawsuits in this.
WELL DUH!
How else does someone that is being discriminated against seek equity other than filing a law suit when a law has been violated?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> One of my long time clients is a gay lawyer in Atlanta, Ga. I met Jimmy years ago when he worked for Alston & Bird, a law firm with offices all over the planet with over 100 lawyers in Atlanta alone.
> Jimmy has been in the Log Cabin Republicans for years and is a fiscal conservative owning part of a nice restaurant in Buckhead.
> He tells me young gays are split on politics with many wanting to vote Republican but the gay boogeyman issue holds them back.
> Sports fans, this is the deep south here but us red necks can wade through the BS to see that these gay folks really are no different than us other conservatives except they happen to fall in love with people of the same sex and want committed relationships with them.
> ...



I guess the GOP hasn't learned how to be for something and against it at the same time.

Perhaps it's the conservative vote that needs to establish different priorities. Jesus never dwelled on homosexuality. Why should we?


----------



## Pauli007001 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Are the black pages discriminatory to white owned businesses?
Liberal fanatics routinely discriminate against some religions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 8, 2013)

The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.

It is time they stopped and followed Jesus on the issue, who never said anything about it.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.
> 
> It is time they stopped and followed Jesus on the issue, who never said anything about it.



Get a bible.

Yes he did... 

LEVITICUS 20:13-- If a man has sexual relations with a man, as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death: their blood will be on their own heads.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Isn't that an example of creating something out of nothing?

That is what painting a picture is. 


Reality may be totally out of touch with the picture you created. Painting an abstract rather than an impressionistic picture so to speak.

Something that is an accurate depiction rather than a distortion of the truth?


----------



## Pauli007001 (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.



Like Dick Cheney?

You dope!


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.
> 
> It is time they stopped and followed Jesus on the issue, who never said anything about it.



Are you coming out of the closet now, or are you simply supporting something you wouldn't do yourself?

Does it bother you to know that the reason Obama is president is because he sucked a lot of  old shriveled white dick when he was a kid?


----------



## Pauli007001 (Nov 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You are lying.
You said you knew how insurance worked, you worked in the industry for years .

You can't remember the lies you told!!
You still haven't provided the post you allege I made, the one that don't exist!!
Fucking liar.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 8, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



That's a lie.  An absolute, bald-faced fucking lie.

If you can prove that, I will OWN that Insurance Company.  But you can't....  Because you are a bald-faced fucking lying piece of shit.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.
> 
> It is time they stopped and followed Jesus on the issue, who never said anything about it.



True but everyone did including Democrats did also for most of that time.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

Most of the conservatives I know want to win and do not care anymore about gay marriage or this new law.
They want to win.


----------



## editec (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.
> ...




You're a CHRISTIANS, right, Geaux?

But apparently not Christian enough to know the difference between the OLD TESTAMENT and the New Testament.



Stop embarrassing MY religion by pretending YOU are a Christan, okay?

Me and _JESUS _thank you in advance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 8, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.
> ...



That is Old Testament. You might also look at the number of other 'laws' that there are in the Old Testament. Almost all of which are totally ignored today.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > One of my long time clients is a gay lawyer in Atlanta, Ga. I met Jimmy years ago when he worked for Alston & Bird, a law firm with offices all over the planet with over 100 lawyers in Atlanta alone.
> ...



Explain specifically how someone waves in your face they are gay.
I have been called names all my life, shot at, beat up, got worn out by 300 lb lineman for 4 quarters.
Who gives a shit if they are called names?
It is only when folks use their religious beliefs to support discrimination that draws the line.
If you do that then you should expect opposition and possibly name calling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Most of the conservatives I know want to win and do not care anymore about gay marriage or this new law.
> They want to win.



Most conservatives want to win, and to govern effectively. Most 'Conservatives' want to make a point, then sit back and mutter about Second Amendment solutions.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 8, 2013)

Friend of mine Vike who is retired Army says it like this:
"40 years from now everyone will look back and say how stupid it was to support discrimination against gay folks because they claim the Bible says so"
Just like gays in the military has caused little to no additional problems giving gays rights will cause little to no problems.
But most importantly is my main point, will run off Democrats and get fiscal conservatives in office.
But some folks are more worried about being called names than winning elections.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 8, 2013)

The split vote, the gay bogeyman v. the gay mafia.


----------



## Geaux4it (Nov 8, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Matthew 19:4-5 -- 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Matthew 19:1-8
King James Version (KJV)
19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


----------



## Pauli007001 (Nov 8, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I'm talking to joe!!
Not you.
Or are you the same person?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The conservative right wing has demonized homosexuality for centuries in America.
> ...



Including.......*clears throat*.....Barack Obama. Up until last year right before the election. The only people that seemed surprised was low-information Dem voters.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sure, there are going to be lawsuits in this.
> WELL DUH!
> How else does someone that is being discriminated against seek equity other than filing a law suit when a law has been violated?



Didnt you post earlier that the lawsuit argument was a red herring?  Make up your mind.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It happens on this board all the time.
There have been numerous links on this very thread of gays suing providers for refusing to cater to them.
The essence of religion is discrimination, between right and wrong.  Your argument is that name calling doesnt matter and if you stand up for your beliefs you'll be called names.  That's nonsense.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Evidence she was fired for lying? You've provided none other than your opinion.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Friend of mine Vike who is retired Army says it like this:
> "40 years from now everyone will look back and say how stupid it was to support discrimination against gay folks because they claim the Bible says so"
> Just like gays in the military has caused little to no additional problems giving gays rights will cause little to no problems.
> But most importantly is my main point, will run off Democrats and get fiscal conservatives in office.
> But some folks are more worried about being called names than winning elections.



Geezus, you're like some old codger who has a story for every occasion.  Who gives a shit what your client in Atlanta thinks?  WHo gives a shit what your butt buddy Vike thinks?
Gays in the military has created tremendous problems.  Look at the rate of sexual harassment claims.  A lot of it is gay.
Running on gay rights will alienate the Christian and family oriented voters in the party.  And those people show up to vote.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 8, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



56% of Republicans polled support ENDA. The House won't even put it up for a vote. That spells out of touch (and stupid)


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The "strict conservative base" under Barry Goldwater stuck up their middle finger and publicly said "FUCK YOU" to the religious right.
> Back when Republicans had balls.
> They are now a bunch of milk weak pussies waving Bibles around.



So, because you are an anti-religious zealot, you feel anyone who is not is a "bunch of milk weak pussies".  Although you're at the other end of the spectrum, you have a lot in common with the Taliban.  They also are zealots who vilify and condemn those who don't agree with them.


----------



## hunarcy (Nov 8, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> 56% of Republicans polled support ENDA. The House won't even put it up for a vote. That spells out of touch (and stupid)



Or Boehner's desire not to be bullied.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> [
> 
> You are lying.
> You said you knew how insurance worked, you worked in the industry for years .
> ...



Double Wide, be happy to watch you post the link to where I said I worked "in insurance". 


Now I probably did say I knew how insurance worked, because I've had to DEAL with them when I was being cured of Republicanism and a few things they balked at paying for.

Which is to say, it doesn't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Guy, you'd be the last person I'd hire as a lawyer... you barely sound like your sane here, I could imagine what would happen if you had to deal with something more complicated than helping someone close on their house.  

But, yeah, that's pretty much what happened.  Can I prove it? Meh, not without tons of discovery and shit.  But this company ROUTINELY fired people who got sick, required operations or got pregnant.   That's how they rolled.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Nov 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The thuggistic TeaPoCrap Party of the far right is not the Republican Party.




I moved from Utah to Idaho because the tea party is to far to the left for me.


----------



## SmokeALib (Nov 8, 2013)

You Maddow leeches crack me up. So ok, there's stupid freedom, or there's no freedom. I'll take stupid republicans over leftist control any day of the week.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Nov 8, 2013)

Vox said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The "strict conservative base" under Barry Goldwater stuck up their middle finger and publicly said "FUCK YOU" to the religious right.
> ...



If i was Boehner I would ask reid if gays have butt sex and then oral sex or oral sex first and then butt sex


----------



## tyroneweaver (Nov 8, 2013)

SmokeALib said:


> You Maddow leeches crack me up. So ok, there's stupid freedom, or there's no freedom. I'll take stupid republicans over leftist control any day of the week.



fooorrre suuuuure.


----------



## Dot Com (Nov 8, 2013)

This thread is still going strong it seems


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 9, 2013)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is the far rightwingers that refuse to vote for anyone who's wishy-washy on abortion. All a dick like Obama has to do to take votes from a Republican is claim that he at one time was supporting abortion. After that he's toast.
> ...


Well, when the radical far Right of your party has you in a death vice-grip, what else do you expect from a sap like Romney?

It's Party over country with today's Republicans.

Every. last. one of these bastards.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > State Sues Florist Who Refused Service to a Gay Wedding | Slog
> ...


Ron and Rand Paul and their followers would argue...yes.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 9, 2013)

.

I'm not a Paul follower, but I think a privately-owned business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  And, since I'm not an absolutist, I can see exceptions being made for emergency rooms.  But a florist or a restaurant?  You bet. 

If that denial exposes that business owner as a bigot or a racist or whatever, fine.  Then I'll know not to do business with them.

.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Most of the conservatives I know want to win and do not care anymore about gay marriage or this new law.
> They want to win.



Not on USMB ... they want "style points."


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm not a Paul follower, but I think a privately-owned business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  And, since I'm not an absolutist, I can see exceptions being made for emergency rooms.  But a florist or a restaurant?  You bet.
> 
> ...



I don't know about "any reason" but the excuse I heard sounds reasonable.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm not a Paul follower, but I think a privately-owned business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  And, since I'm not an absolutist, I can see exceptions being made for emergency rooms.  But a florist or a restaurant?  You bet.
> 
> ...


That's a nation run by the majority.

AKA...mob rule.

We're a nation run by laws.

You know this.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 9, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




I'm not talking about legality of the issue.  I'm merely expressing my opinion of the issue.  

.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 9, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


I thought we were talking about a legal issue.

My bad.

I'm personally against the gay lifestyle, just as I am about fornication, stealing, lying, and all the other sins the Bible speaks against. I'm not going to single out my pet peeve sin and single it out for demonization. The Bible says that sin is sin, all of it is bad.

The Bible also speaks about hating the sin, not the sinner.

That's the route I take.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The thuggistic TeaPoCrap Party of the far right is not the Republican Party.



It doesn't count as thuggery when someone says to you in a tweet they want to muss your hair, okay?

Besides, the only thing NEUTRAL observers say about the Tea Partiers is that they are not a group associated with violence, law breaking, vile acts of desecration or whatever goes on courtesy of the Occupy movement.

The entrenched members of Congress in BOTH parties are going to be in for a fight of their political careers to win re-election if they supported Obama.

The Tea Party's message is resonating with the people!


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 9, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



With a post mentioning the Bible a couple of times and an avatar image of Malcolm X, I wonder.

Do you follow the Bible or the Koran or neither or both or what???


----------



## BorisTheAnimal (Nov 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


1980 when Carter was kicked to the curb.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The radical right hated and despised Romney.
He would not be their candidate in a zillion years.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm not a Paul follower, but I think a privately-owned business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  And, since I'm not an absolutist, I can see exceptions being made for emergency rooms.  But a florist or a restaurant?  You bet.
> 
> ...



I used to believe that as I own 2 businesses but what happens is you open up a can of worms. But the reality is very few if any gay folks want to do business where they are not wanted.
And this law is employment equality, not getting served somewhere.
And there are a zillion and one ways to get out of working for a gay person or anyone if you want. All that photographer had to do for that gay wedding was say "the press of other business" and that is a vague but valid reason under any law.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Totally agree but why do I continuously hear "the majority want government health care" argument with Obamacare.
Their entire premise is this is what the majority want and need.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 10, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I'm not a Paul follower, but I think a privately-owned business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.  And, since I'm not an absolutist, I can see exceptions being made for emergency rooms.  But a florist or a restaurant?  You bet.
> 
> ...



So, where should we put up this list of business than can and cannot discriminate? What if you're the only store in town? Should you be able to not sell milk to that Muslim family? It's really easy to say "let them discriminate" when you live in or near a big town, but what if you're a rural dweller? 

Regardless, ENDA isn't about public accommodation, but about not being fired if your boss happens to find out you're gay.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2013)

I have advised businesses for 30 years on hiring practices such as background pre-employment and employees they have problems with.
I advise to do no drug testing as the majority of drug problems in the workplace are prescription and you open up large problems firing for that even if you could in most instances.
The one thing that is stupid about opposition to this bill is that for years I tell my clients on most all cases where they want to fire someone no matter what to give that employee a written warning the next time that employee shows up late for work. 2nd infraction fire them for that.
I do not advocate firing gay employees for being gay, stupid to me but even under this law gays will be fired for being late the 2nd time when in fact they were being fired for being gay.
It is wrong but no law stops that.
NO law stops any business from getting around the vague details of "laws".


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 10, 2013)

Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.



Religiion is protected by the 1A.  Gay is not.
See the difference?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.



But if you are gay AND Christian I will fire your ass!


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.
> ...



And guess on what grounds you will get sued for discrimination.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 10, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You're thinking Democrats.

All we want at this point is for DC to leave us alone and not have to deal with their nonsense 24/7, 365.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 10, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.



Why would you want to fire someone for being Christian?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.
> ...



Because gays are the most hateful bigoted group around.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.
> ...



Actually that is incorrect. It's not the 1st Amendment that protects a Christian from being fired, it's employment non discrimination laws like the ENDA.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 10, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.
> ...



Why would you want to fire someone for being gay?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Bingo!  You've got it!  No one wants to fire anyone for being gay.  Ergo the law in unnecessary.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Ah, but they do. People hide their orientation at work all the time for fear of being fired. Either remove ALL employment non discrimination laws or pass ENDA.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No one gets fired for being gay.  Sorry.  They might get fired for sexually harassing a coworker.  They might get fired for creating an unpleasant atmosphere at work.  They might get fired for being incompetent.  Or for insubordination.  And all of those reasons are fine.  But if we pass the Trial Lawyers' Jobs Act, aka ENDA, then it will only be because they were gay.
Personally I am against all interference with the employer-employee relationship.  But this isnt law yet.  Nor will it be.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Bullshit. People have been and are fired when their orientation is discovered. 

There are Federal workplace protections that prevent an employer from firing someone based on their race, religion, gender and country of origin. Either eliminate those laws or pass ENDA. If I can't fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for my sexual orientation.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 10, 2013)

SmokeALib said:


> You Maddow leeches crack me up. So ok, there's stupid freedom, or there's no freedom. I'll take stupid republicans over leftist control any day of the week.


LOL!!!
 

Hey buddy, what's "stupid freedom?" 

Can you define that for me?



Mojo2 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The thuggistic TeaPoCrap Party of the far right is not the Republican Party.
> ...


When a defense of the Tea Party includes a bash of The Occupy Movement, NEUTRAL is the last thing to call it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Because you say so, yeah.

The two are not related at all.  They actually have nothing to do with each other.  There is no reason to pass this crap other than to affirm homosexuals' view of themselves as victims.  And give lawyers something else to sue over.
Flush it.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Actually, you're describing the past and current response from the Right.

Yes, the majority DOES want Obamacare, however, above and beyond that fact, it has been passed as a LAW. Yet, the Right still refers to it and treats it as if it were some BILL. Yet and still, the Right is trying to ignore it and/or tear it down...a LAW passed a long time ago at this point.

They've wasted much time and money in Congress now attacking it, 43 or so times trying to vote it down and going as far as shutting down government, to the loss of 23 billion to attack this LAW.

You need to get the message to your friends on the Right...We're a nation of laws, not men.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

Obamacare opposed by majority in every poll.
Oops.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 10, 2013)

It's the LAW Rabbi.

*Whoops!!!*


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 10, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> It's the LAW Rabbi.
> 
> *Whoops!!!*



So was segregation, dumbass.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So since no one gets fired for being gay you support a law that bans firing based on sexual orientation so that if it did happen you would want those gays to have legal remedies.
Welcome aboard.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Nov 10, 2013)

Their new slogan :The GOP, now 5% less crappy than Democrats


----------



## whitehall (Nov 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
> Having voted Republican most of the time over the last 40 years I see this as the path to no where again for the GOP.
> They are more interested in pleasing the religious right than winning elections.
> Only a big tent Republican party wins. The bull shit "well, we need to stick to our strict conservative base" is great but it loses elections.
> How much dumber can they get?



Got gay? Stay thirsty my friend.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 11, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> > You Maddow leeches crack me up. So ok, there's stupid freedom, or there's no freedom. I'll take stupid republicans over leftist control any day of the week.
> ...



*Objective is what I'd call it.*



> *OCCUPY VIOLENCE VS. TEA PARTY RACISM?*
> 
> May. 3, 2012 12:04pm
> 
> ...



http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/

Occupy violence vs. Tea Party racism? | Video | TheBlaze.com


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, idiot.  If you pass a law like that people will sue for being fired because they were incompetent, because they harassed people at work, because they stole money.  But they will file suits because they were gay.
Wake up.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 11, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
> ...



Straight for all of my 59 years and I never had to choose my sexual orientation as I was born this way. 
Same as everyone else.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.


----------



## Seawytch (Nov 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No, not just because I say so, but I do have anecdotal evidence as well. I've known people fired or not hired because they are gay, but you don't have to believe me since there are plenty of lawsuits and news stories about people fired for being gay. 

Of course they are "related". People are protected from being fired on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Either remove all of those protections or add gays and lesbians to it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 11, 2013)

I think it is kind of silly to have protections against being fired if you also have "at will" employment where an employer doesn't really have to give you a reason for firing you.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Because we know black people never sue when they get fired, right?
ANd because the threat of a lawsuit has never made any defendent settle, just to avoid the cost, right?
The idea that you can beat me easily is as laughable as anything in your post.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Anecdote does not add  up to evidence.  Sorry.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> I think it is kind of silly to have protections against being fired if you also have "at will" employment where an employer doesn't really have to give you a reason for firing you.



At will means any valid reason that is legal under the law.
We do not condone protecting the benefits for a convicted child molester just because he is a union man.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 11, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law. 
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 11, 2013)

Amazing the fools that believe that juries routinely just award plaintiffs what they want without any evidence to prove it.
Over the years I have seen juries give a boat load of money where the liability was clear but the damages not so clear AND give $2500 to a man that missed 6 months of work being hit by a forklift in a store with $20,000 worth of medical bills. It goes both ways.
But to claim that juries are too stupid to sit and determine the facts in a civil case is absurd.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is kind of silly to have protections against being fired if you also have "at will" employment where an employer doesn't really have to give you a reason for firing you.
> ...



Quite right.  

But here's the thing. The cases you whine about are usually cases where they couldn't make a legal case, but the school district didn't want to rehire them.  

Not sure if there is an easy out to this.  

The converse is, what if a teacher is falsely accused of something, the investigation clears him, but the school district won't put him back in a classroom for fear of litigation. 

I do think teachers where there is a valid accusation should be fired, even if charges aren't pressed.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


OK so you admit that such cases exist.  You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins.  Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued.  Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing the fools that believe that juries routinely just award plaintiffs what they want without any evidence to prove it.
> Over the years I have seen juries give a boat load of money where the liability was clear but the damages not so clear AND give $2500 to a man that missed 6 months of work being hit by a forklift in a store with $20,000 worth of medical bills. It goes both ways.
> But to claim that juries are too stupid to sit and determine the facts in a civil case is absurd.



And you would be totally for frivilous lawsuits even if you weren't in the business of making someone's case for them. 

here's the underlying problem. It's not just the absurd cases, it's the companies that decide to settle them rather than pay tens of thousands in legal fees.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 12, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing the fools that believe that juries routinely just award plaintiffs what they want without any evidence to prove it.
> ...



A judge decides if the law suit is frivolous or not at summary judgment before the trial starts and shortly into the proceedings.
NO company pays tens of thousands in settlements on nuisance cases if their employer personnel records have them going by the book in compliance as ALL companies do this now law suit or not. 
And companies DO NOT decide what to settle as they have liability insurance for this and the carrier jumps in and indemnifies the company same as anyone that gets sued and has insurance. The carrier hires the lawyers for the defense and these guys specialize in the defense of these cases.
You folks are not very swift in your you think you know everything LA LA world.
You also need to go back to what you know this because you have no clue how this works.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



And when your argument becomes reductio ad absurdum it means you've lost.
Better luck next time.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 12, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I don't. Name someone who did.


----------



## MarcATL (Nov 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Actually...Rabbi is simply just a complete fool, with or w/o this.

Rabbi, why don't you cite all the frivolous lawsuits by blacks that falsely claimed to be fired over their race.

Based on the claptrap you've been spewing, that should be easy for you to do.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 12, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It would be easier to fix the ACA site.

You know what you're asking is nonsense.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Gee, that wasnt hard.
Louis Selkirk, Mason man, suing Duke Energy over racial discrimination, wrongful termination - Local News Story
Fat ****** couldn't stay below 285lbs but was fired because he was black. After 18 years for the company.  Maybe no one noticed he was black before then?

Here's another one.  They arent hard to find.
Former police sergeant's federal lawsuit against city alleges racial discrimination, wrongful termination / LJWorld.com


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Well, it depends on "frivolous."  And 'all".  Of course a lot of that stuff never makes the news media so there is really no telling.  But anyone who thinks that doesnt happen is an idiot.  Then again, look who we're dealing with.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 12, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Plenty of frivolous lawsuits filed by blacks and whites and everyone trying to game the system. 
However, there are protections in place in the law to protect the defendants pre trial and most all of them are thrown out at summary judgment leaving the plaintiff nothing and the attorney that brought the action out 10 grand of their own money.
You do not deny equal protection under the law for anyone just because some attempt to take advantage of it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



No one says it never happens.
You want to quit prosecuting all crimes because a few innocent folks get convicted.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



OK, so you admit that such suits happen.  But somehow the threat of such suits will not change anyone's behavior?  Really? Have you thought this out very well?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Never said at any time it never happened.
The Constitution was not written with what the legal behavior of people would be.
The Constitution was written to make sure the behavior of GOVERNMENT was in check and limiting it, NOT the individual rights of the PEOPLE.
You think you know everything about everything.
Everybody is smarter than you and me and everyone else about something. 
You are not a master of all trades so quit claiming to be.
You are very susceptible to rumor and innuendo that matches your ideology.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



OK, so someone hacked your account and wrote this:


> That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
> That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
> The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
> You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.



The thrust of your post is that frivolous suits are not a worry because the standard of evidence is high.  I have shown that such suits exist.  They might prevail often enough. The threat of suits alone alters behavior by employers, imposing a cost on the firm and society.
Your response is an ad hom and some irrelevant bullshit about the Constitution.  You have lost this argument.  Yet again.  Your boast about beating me with hands tied is laughably refuted.
You're dismissed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Nov 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Dumbass, I stated that defendants will not throw large amounts of cash at plaintiffs just because they filed suit. That will never happen.
You are a dishonest old fuck. Your behavior suggests you filed a frivolous "have a wreck, get a check" with your local TV lawyer at least once recently.
This is not the same as the 15 grand you pocketed with your chiropractor after Granny hit you going 2 miles a hour in the parking lot.


----------

