Congress votes to end gender id/gay job discrimination

[Katzndogz]

If a person is qualified, reliable and performs the assigned duties well, should the employer have the freedom to fire that person because they happen to be gay?

In my opinion, no, they should not, but if you believe in living in a free country then that means an employer has the right to employ who ever he wants and terminate their employment when ever he wants for what ever reason.



Correct. You have the right to be a shit bag if you want.



By robbing somebody else of their freedom.

I put it to you: which is the nobler, more American version of freedom?

The freedom of people making their own choices free of coercion of government authority. That is the more noble version of American freedom.

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

 

[Nosmo King]

In my opinion, no, they should not, but if you believe in living in a free country then that means an employer has the right to employ who ever he wants and terminate their employment when ever he wants for what ever reason.



Correct. You have the right to be a shit bag if you want.



By robbing somebody else of their freedom.



The freedom of people making their own choices free of coercion of government authority. That is the more noble version of American freedom.

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

The employee/employer relationship is not an apples to apples comparison. An employee is free to quit whenever they desire. Employment is voluntary, not slavery.

But an employer should not fire an employee without cause, and that cause cannot be due to an immutable circumstance of said employee. To deny legitimate work, a means on which to live due to bigotry is simply unfair and un-American.

 

[whitehall]

Since the homosexual bullies think it's fine to shock little girls with hairy pretend females in school bathrooms and locker rooms why not go all the way (no pun intended) and legalize everything related to sexual conduct? Let your imagination be your guide.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Boehner says freedom from discrimination will cost businesses too much. At the very least, he hides his fear of freedom. The stock Conservative bigot does not disguise their ignorance as we'll.

Why on earth would anyone claiming to love America oppose this bill?

Because it's anti-freedom, that's why. You will, of course, claim that it's promoting freedom by protecting homosexuals in the workplace, but it actually takes away the freedom of the employer to employ whom he wants at will. These kinds of laws are an overreach by the federal government.

If a person is qualified, reliable and performs the assigned duties well, should the employer have the freedom to fire that person because they happen to be gay? The freedom you're defending is the freedom to discriminate. The freedom I'm defending is the freedom of an individual to freely be himself. I put it to you: which is the nobler, more American version of freedom?

I also support the right of a gay employer to fire someone who converts to Evangelical Christianity and starts preaching about homosexuality being a sin, but don't let the fact that you are advocating for forcing that gay person not to be able to fire an obnoxious asshole prove to you that you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All you homophobic anti-Americans need to just relax. Take a few slow deep breaths.

Your fellow homophobic, anti-American Rs and t-potties in the House won't pass this because they don't believe in the Constitutional guarantee of equality for all Americans any more than you do.

LOL, now I am anti-American for opposing this bill?

You are either with the homosexuals or against us! LOL, sounds familiar, who else said something like that?

Opposing this bill shows that you are not for equality and freedom at all.

Supporting it shows you are an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If a person is qualified, reliable and performs the assigned duties well, should the employer have the freedom to fire that person because they happen to be gay?

In my opinion, no, they should not, but if you believe in living in a free country then that means an employer has the right to employ who ever he wants and terminate their employment when ever he wants for what ever reason.



Correct. You have the right to be a shit bag if you want.



By robbing somebody else of their freedom.

I put it to you: which is the nobler, more American version of freedom?

The freedom of people making their own choices free of coercion of government authority. That is the more noble version of American freedom.

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

I should pos rep you for this, I actually laughed out loud.

Telling gay people that they cannot fire someone for for being a Christian is a lot more limiting of their freedom than telling the Christian he has to look for another job.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If a person is qualified, reliable and performs the assigned duties well, should the employer have the freedom to fire that person because they happen to be gay? The freedom you're defending is the freedom to discriminate. The freedom I'm defending is the freedom of an individual to freely be himself. I put it to you: which is the nobler, more American version of freedom?

If someone has a job, is qualified, reliable and performs well, it HIGHLY doubtful that the person will be fired because it's found out that the person is gay. Unless the gay guy starts losing it over a coworker and start harassing him. Should an employer have to hire someone just because they are gay, whether they are qualified and reliable or not.

None of us are able to be freely ourselves. Being freely yourself is probably the number one reason why people are fired. There is no "nobler" version of freedom that doesn't impose on someone else's freedom. If the gay guy has the freedom to act out at work, then anyone working with him or her, has the same freedom to act out anti gay feelings. That's freedom to be freely yourself.

We don't discriminate enough, there should be more of it.

The law doesn't say that someone must be hired because they happen to be gay. That's a specious argument and you know it.

Workplace romances too often go awry and often they result in someone loosing their job. That should apply to gay and straight alike.

What the law says is an employer cannot fire someone because they happen to be gay.

Our society becomes greater the more we know and interact with our fellow citizens. Discrimination and hatred stymies that growth. Asking for more discrimination is a fool's errand. Segregation and hatred and fear do NOTHING to advance society.

The law didn't say that employers had to give preferential treatment based on past actions of other people either, until it did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

The employee/employer relationship is not an apples to apples comparison. An employee is free to quit whenever they desire. Employment is voluntary, not slavery.

But an employer should not fire an employee without cause, and that cause cannot be due to an immutable circumstance of said employee. To deny legitimate work, a means on which to live due to bigotry is simply unfair and un-American.

Why shouldn't they fire people without cause? Doesn't requiring cause, whatever the fuck you think that is, make the employer the salve?

 

[Iceman]

All you homophobic anti-Americans need to just relax. Take a few slow deep breaths.

Your fellow homophobic, anti-American Rs and t-potties in the House won't pass this because they don't believe in the Constitutional guarantee of equality for all Americans any more than you do.

LOL, now I am anti-American for opposing this bill?

You are either with the homosexuals or against us! LOL, sounds familiar, who else said something like that?

Opposing this bill shows that you are not for equality and freedom at all.

No I don't support equality for all, nor did the Founders of the United States. So to suggest blanket egalitarianism is an American value is incorrect. But I do support free association(aka discrimination). In a free society individuals have the right to associate and disassociate with whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

 

[Nosmo King]

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

The employee/employer relationship is not an apples to apples comparison. An employee is free to quit whenever they desire. Employment is voluntary, not slavery.

But an employer should not fire an employee without cause, and that cause cannot be due to an immutable circumstance of said employee. To deny legitimate work, a means on which to live due to bigotry is simply unfair and un-American.

Why shouldn't they fire people without cause? Doesn't requiring cause, whatever the fuck you think that is, make the employer the salve?

I want to understand your position. Is this just more good ol' boy gay bashing, or is it your contention that no workers should have any rights in the workplace at any time? Do your principles allow for any consideration of labor as humans and not merely a commodity?

 

[Flopper]

In my opinion, no, they should not, but if you believe in living in a free country then that means an employer has the right to employ who ever he wants and terminate their employment when ever he wants for what ever reason.



Correct. You have the right to be a shit bag if you want.



By robbing somebody else of their freedom.



The freedom of people making their own choices free of coercion of government authority. That is the more noble version of American freedom.

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

Employees should be judge based on only one criteria, the quality of their work versus the amount they are paid. It should make no difference, what the employee's sexual preference are, their skin color, their sex, their ethnicity, or their religion. It's their ability to do their job that's important. It's good business and it's right thing to do.

 

[Katzndogz]

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

Employees should be judge based on only one criteria, the quality of their work versus the amount they are paid. It should make no difference, what the employee's sexual preference are, their skin color, their sex, their ethnicity, or their religion. It's their ability to do their job that's important. It's good business and it's right thing to do.

Because it's good business, most successful business people will conduct their affairs like you propose. That it's the "right" thing to do depends on your personal opinion of what right means. It's not the right thing to do just because it's the politically correct thing to do. Certain businesses may want to hire ONLY gays. I don't know whether Barney's on Wilshire has a policy of only hiring gays or whether it just worked out that way but all the sales people are gay. It works for this store. Should they be forced to hire some token straight just to show how diverse they are?

 

[Flopper]

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

Employees should be judge based on only one criteria, the quality of their work versus the amount they are paid. It should make no difference, what the employee's sexual preference are, their skin color, their sex, their ethnicity, or their religion. It's their ability to do their job that's important. It's good business and it's right thing to do.

Because it's good business, most successful business people will conduct their affairs like you propose. That it's the "right" thing to do depends on your personal opinion of what right means. It's not the right thing to do just because it's the politically correct thing to do. Certain businesses may want to hire ONLY gays. I don't know whether Barney's on Wilshire has a policy of only hiring gays or whether it just worked out that way but all the sales people are gay. It works for this store. Should they be forced to hire some token straight just to show how diverse they are?

No, sexual preference has not been a major factor in job discrimination as it has been for blacks and females. Hiring policies toward blacks and females have resulted in significantly lower pay and job discrimination. That is not the case with gays. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender earn more, save more, have less debt compared to national averages.
Gay people earn more, owe less - Dec. 6, 2012

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The employee/employer relationship is not an apples to apples comparison. An employee is free to quit whenever they desire. Employment is voluntary, not slavery.

But an employer should not fire an employee without cause, and that cause cannot be due to an immutable circumstance of said employee. To deny legitimate work, a means on which to live due to bigotry is simply unfair and un-American.

Why shouldn't they fire people without cause? Doesn't requiring cause, whatever the fuck you think that is, make the employer the salve?

I want to understand your position. Is this just more good ol' boy gay bashing, or is it your contention that no workers should have any rights in the workplace at any time? Do your principles allow for any consideration of labor as humans and not merely a commodity?

They should have a right not to be killed, not to have their property stolen, and all the other rights everyone has. They should also have a right to negotiate whatever contract they want.

You prefer to take at least one of those rights away from them, and call it freedom. The thing you don't seem to get is that anything that takes away anyone's rights means less freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have a decidedly warped sense of "freedom" It seems that freedom, to you, means the freedom to commit actions limiting someone else's freedom. Freedom to me is much broader. No employer should have the freedom to exercise his hatred by denying someone employment for no cause other than the employer hates the employee's immutable circumstance. Yours is the "freedom" exercised by the slaveholder. Hardly a freedom to be embraced by a free people.

Now, you may think that anti-discrimination statutes are coercion. But they are actually the way we can make the whole of the country free. Free from blind hatred and bigotry and the development of what is, essentially second class Americans. If you think an employer has the right to terminate someone's employment simply because that employee is gay, what stops an employer from terminating someone's employment because they have an Irish surname or have blue eyes or are left handed? If none of those immutable factors do not adversely impact the job assigned to that worker, there is no real valid reason to fire that worker, is there?

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

Employees should be judge based on only one criteria, the quality of their work versus the amount they are paid. It should make no difference, what the employee's sexual preference are, their skin color, their sex, their ethnicity, or their religion. It's their ability to do their job that's important. It's good business and it's right thing to do.

Does that mean you oppose the law? Or are you actually lying?

 

[Flopper]

Employers should be absolutely free to terminate employment because of a surname, or have blue eyes, or are left handed. That leaves the person "free" to go somewhere they are appreciated. Does an employee have the right to quit because the employer is left handed, or has an Irish surname or blue eyes? No one would compel an employee to work for someone they consider objectionable. Well, same thing. A man or woman that may have worked for the same company for 25 years gets a new employer when the business is sold. The new owner is gay and he comes to work in a dress every day. Does the employee have the right to quit? Can the employee say "I don't want to look at you in that dress every day"? The employee can go further than that and tell the new boss that he hates gays. Is there any circumstance that could legally be used to force that employee to stay? Even if the employee was key, the backbone of the company, can anything be used to compel his attendance every day?

Employees should be judge based on only one criteria, the quality of their work versus the amount they are paid. It should make no difference, what the employee's sexual preference are, their skin color, their sex, their ethnicity, or their religion. It's their ability to do their job that's important. It's good business and it's right thing to do.

Does that mean you oppose the law? Or are you actually lying?

I have no strong feeling concerning the bill. I do believe discrimination against gay and lesbians in the workplace is wrong, however I'm not sure we need a law against it. About half the states already have such laws.

 

[Politico]

All you homophobic anti-Americans need to just relax. Take a few slow deep breaths.

Your fellow homophobic, anti-American Rs and t-potties in the House won't pass this because they don't believe in the Constitutional guarantee of equality for all Americans any more than you do.

This drivel is so old.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why shouldn't they fire people without cause? Doesn't requiring cause, whatever the fuck you think that is, make the employer the salve?

I want to understand your position. Is this just more good ol' boy gay bashing, or is it your contention that no workers should have any rights in the workplace at any time? Do your principles allow for any consideration of labor as humans and not merely a commodity?

They should have a right not to be killed, not to have their property stolen, and all the other rights everyone has. They should also have a right to negotiate whatever contract they want.

You prefer to take at least one of those rights away from them, and call it freedom. The thing you don't seem to get is that anything that takes away anyone's rights means less freedom.

Do American citizens have the right to be homosexuals? Do Amerians citizens have a right to earn a living? Should American citizens have their rights protected by law?

 

[Katzndogz]

I want to understand your position. Is this just more good ol' boy gay bashing, or is it your contention that no workers should have any rights in the workplace at any time? Do your principles allow for any consideration of labor as humans and not merely a commodity?

They should have a right not to be killed, not to have their property stolen, and all the other rights everyone has. They should also have a right to negotiate whatever contract they want.

You prefer to take at least one of those rights away from them, and call it freedom. The thing you don't seem to get is that anything that takes away anyone's rights means less freedom.

Do American citizens have the right to be homosexuals? Do Amerians citizens have a right to earn a living? Should American citizens have their rights protected by law?

Americans do not have a right to any, all and every job they wish. There's no such right. While Americans have the right to be homosexuals if they wish, there is no right to have everyone else accept their homosexual relationships. Sorry, the right just doesn't exist.

 

[Nosmo King]

They should have a right not to be killed, not to have their property stolen, and all the other rights everyone has. They should also have a right to negotiate whatever contract they want.

You prefer to take at least one of those rights away from them, and call it freedom. The thing you don't seem to get is that anything that takes away anyone's rights means less freedom.

Do American citizens have the right to be homosexuals? Do Amerians citizens have a right to earn a living? Should American citizens have their rights protected by law?

Americans do not have a right to any, all and every job they wish. There's no such right. While Americans have the right to be homosexuals if they wish, there is no right to have everyone else accept their homosexual relationships. Sorry, the right just doesn't exist.

i did not specify "any job they wish". You added that caveat. Would you like to answer the question as it was posed? Do Americans have a right to earn a living?

And while you're mulling that over, can you answer this: is there a difference between "acceptance" and "toleration"? Homosexuals, I believe, would settle for toleration, while Conservatives always seem to hide behind the semantic skirts of acceptance.