Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.
What the fuck?
You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?
Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.
Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?
It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.
What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.
I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.
What the fuck?
You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?
Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.
Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?
It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.
What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.
I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.
What the fuck?
You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?
Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.
Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?
It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.
What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.
I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
As it turns out, homosexual BEHAVIORS are not covered under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.What the fuck?
You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?
Impeachment -- ain't going to happen!As it turns out, homosexual BEHAVIORS are not covered under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.What the fuck?
You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?
The lower courts are punting the issue to SCOTUS because two appeals now have determined that sexual behaviors are not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What the lower courts are daring SCOTUS to do is amend the 1964 Act without the permission or input from the Legislative Branch. I smell impeachment-bait...lol...
Be careful Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer & Kennedy! Re-read your employment primer. You do not have the power to amend an Act of Congress. Only to interpret it. And, Ginsburg herself said in a published interview in the 1970s that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to segregated bathrooms (a branch of the LGBT agenda)..
It will if there's a GOP Administration & Senate..so yeah, I see your point. But on the rare miracle that Trump beats the mathematics and wins, don't bet on your conclusion. If the Justices brazenly rewrite an Act of Congress, they will be punished for it. Mark my words. The GOP has some purging ideas for the SCOTUS.Impeachment -- ain't going to happen!
Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.
Actually, you can. In over 30 states. You can also refuse to hire them for that reason....and refuse to rent space to them for that reason.
Seems unAmerican, doesn't it?
It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.
What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.
I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Nonsense. Just cause has to be shown. If you can't afford to pay the person, then say so. Be fucking honest about it.What the fuck?
You can't fire someone for being a homosexual? What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?
Doesn't matter. If I don't like you.... I can fire you. If you don't come in with a belt on, and your shirt tucked in, I can fire you.
You don't have a 'right' to my money. You have the right to pursue happiness. Not a right to it.
If you are a small government believer, then to get the government to back you up so that you can fire people for their sexuality makes you no better than the libs.
It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.
What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.
I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Your idea of freedom is for a bigoted business owner to be free do fuck someone over. Mine is for the someone to be free to not be fucked with. See.....the.....difference, brother.
I stand on the right side of history here. And that greatly upsets you.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.
The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision
“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”
“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”
“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”
“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”
EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra
Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.
Of course, that is only my humble opinion.
The only point I was trying to make – and I did – was that both the SCOTUS and the EEOC considered sexual orientation to be covered by Title VII.
And I defy you to show me any portion of the Oncale ruling where they claim that sexual orientation is protected under Title IIV. Not only doesn't such a passage exist, Scalia actively rejects the very concept in the ruling:ONCALE said:Title VII prohibits “discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex” in the “terms” or “conditions” of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
ONCALE said:Respondents and their amici contend that recognizing liability for same-sex harassment will transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace. But that risk is no greater for same-sex than for opposite-sex harassment, and is adequately met by careful attention to the requirements of the statute. Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at “discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex.”
The Court ruled that a hostile work environment created because of someone's sexual orientation was covered by Title VII.
Common sense should tell you that if you could actually quote the court saying any of this, you would have. Instead, you're only quoting yourself.Common sense should tell you that if intimidation based upon sexual orientation is covered by Title VII then so is firing someone based upon sexual orientation.
“The EEOC's ruling is an executive function, not judiciary. It creates no binding precedent for any lower federal court. Nor has their ruling ever been applied to any State. But instead, exclusively to federal employees. Its also ludicrously recent, having occurred barely a year ago” (highlights my own).
You actually believe that EEOC rules apply only to federal employees/employers.
It sounds very American. It's called FREEDOM.
What's unAmerican is people like you thinking it's your place to dictate to someone else how they should exercise their freedom when it comes to who they hire. You have a problem if a characteristic is used to deny someone with that characteristic when it comes to hiring, admitting, etc. yet you don't mind putting things in place that use the same characteristic to benefit that person.
I'll show consistency on the matter. I'm white, male, Christian, and Conservative. If someone that owns a business doesn't want to serve, hire, or admit me for any or all of those things, I'm OK with that. They don't owe me anything.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Your idea of freedom is for a bigoted business owner to be free do fuck someone over. Mine is for the someone to be free to not be fucked with. See.....the.....difference, brother.
I stand on the right side of history here. And that greatly upsets you.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised in the case was not appealed.
The question is whether homosexuals are protected under the provisions of Title VII. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) addressed the issue in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The issue in that case was whether workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against “discrimination because of sex,” when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex. Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS Decision
“He [Joseph Oncale] was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew which included respondents John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson. Lyons, the crane operator, and Pippen, the driller, had supervisory authority, App. 41, 77, 43. On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape” (explanatory insertion my own).
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—2(a)(1). ….'When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.' Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”
“If our precedents leave any doubt on the question, we hold today that nothing in Title VII necessarily bars a claim of discrimination “because of . . . sex” merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex.”
“Courts have had little trouble with that principle in cases like Johnson, where an employee claims to have been passed over for a job or promotion. But when the issue arises in the context of a “hostile environment” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same-sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser’s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v. Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).”
“Because we conclude that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)
The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”
EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra
Conclusion: When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, Title VII will be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation.
Of course, that is only my humble opinion.
Well ultimately, they better figure this out quick, because the moment homos start demanding that Christian business owners have no choice in hiring homos, you are talking civil war. We're not going there. I will refuse to do it, and if pushed there is going to be a fight.
Quite frankly we have been living at peace with this for decades now, and the homos have gotten pretty much everything they have asked for thus far.
But this is the red line for me, and millions of Christians. You do not get to 'demand' I pay you. If that's the next step, it's going to be a down right bloody next step.
The court explicitly limits its ruling to discrimination because of sex. It never includes sexual orientation, never cites it as protected, or any of your other pseudo-legal fiction.
Show me. Don't tell me. You're citing yourself because we both know the ruling doesn't say what you do....
On Thursday, a panel of judges with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a lower court's dismissal of the suit filed by Kimberly Hively of South Bend, Ind., a former part-time instructor at Ivy Tech Community College, which has campuses around the state. Hively said the college did not hire her for full-time employment because she is a lesbian....The ruling highlights a gap in federal civil-rights protections in the workplace: Employees are protected from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color and national origin, but not sexual orientation....
While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress.
Whoa! You are really going out on a limb there, bro. Nobody ever wants to hire guys like you.
I get it. You want to be "free" to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation. You are a typical "conservative".
Your only problem is that this nation has decided to go in the other direction. Your kind is dwindling away. You are being slowly but steadily marginalized.
Don't worry though, we will never legalize the act of discriminating against you because of who you are.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Your idea of freedom is for a bigoted business owner to be free do fuck someone over. Mine is for the someone to be free to not be fucked with. See.....the.....difference, brother.
I stand on the right side of history here. And that greatly upsets you.
Your idea of freedom is to tell a business owner they can't hire/not hire a person of their choice for whatever reason. That means you're willing to fuck over a business owner including telling him/her how much to pay a low skilled worker.
You stand on the hypocrite side and try to justify how it's OK for you to do so.
First, I'm not your damn brother. My family doesn't have pieces of shit like you.
Secondly, I've had no problem getting hired.
I get it. You want to be able to tell someone who they can hire, etc. then say you believe in freedom.
You already support legalization of discrimination due to those characteristics. You support affirmative action. Stop lying.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Your idea of freedom is for a bigoted business owner to be free do fuck someone over. Mine is for the someone to be free to not be fucked with. See.....the.....difference, brother.
I stand on the right side of history here. And that greatly upsets you.
Your idea of freedom is to tell a business owner they can't hire/not hire a person of their choice for whatever reason. That means you're willing to fuck over a business owner including telling him/her how much to pay a low skilled worker.
You stand on the hypocrite side and try to justify how it's OK for you to do so.
We could go over this many times. A business open to the public and which hires workers in accordance with US employment law...has a responsibility to the community. This responsibility accompanies the right that the business has to operate.
You are wrong on this as you have always been wrong on this. Enjoy the way gay people claim their rights. You can do nothing about it.
You seem upset. That's cool. I want you to be upset and to throw tantrums. Young people will look at you and scoff. They know that being born a certain way isn't something that should prevent you from attaining greatness. You and I both hit the demographic lottery at birth. I'm just more secure than you....and I don't fear those who are different from me.
You are a member of a dying breed, brother. May the remainder of your years be filled with joy and property as your political ideology is swallowed up by representative democracy. I know I will enjoy it.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Your idea of freedom is for a bigoted business owner to be free do fuck someone over. Mine is for the someone to be free to not be fucked with. See.....the.....difference, brother.
I stand on the right side of history here. And that greatly upsets you.
Your idea of freedom is to tell a business owner they can't hire/not hire a person of their choice for whatever reason. That means you're willing to fuck over a business owner including telling him/her how much to pay a low skilled worker.
You stand on the hypocrite side and try to justify how it's OK for you to do so.
We could go over this many times. A business open to the public and which hires workers in accordance with US employment law...has a responsibility to the community. This responsibility accompanies the right that the business has to operate.
You are wrong on this as you have always been wrong on this. Enjoy the way gay people claim their rights. You can do nothing about it.
Enjoy being a faggot supporter. You've lowered yourself to the 2nd class that they are. There's nothing you can do about being that very thing.
Another Liberal idiot that think opposing him means a person is upset. I'm disgusted that Liberals claim they are for freedom then cry like bitches when someone exercises in a manner you don't like. It shows you lack of worthiness.
I got it right when I chose to be normal. You assume that because someone chose to be homo that it scares me. The last thing I fear is some faggot.
Like I said, I'm not your damn brother.
May the remainder of your days be agonizing and suffering.
Your idea of freedom is for a bigoted business owner to be free do fuck someone over. Mine is for the someone to be free to not be fucked with. See.....the.....difference, brother.
I stand on the right side of history here. And that greatly upsets you.
Your idea of freedom is to tell a business owner they can't hire/not hire a person of their choice for whatever reason. That means you're willing to fuck over a business owner including telling him/her how much to pay a low skilled worker.
You stand on the hypocrite side and try to justify how it's OK for you to do so.
We could go over this many times. A business open to the public and which hires workers in accordance with US employment law...has a responsibility to the community. This responsibility accompanies the right that the business has to operate.
You are wrong on this as you have always been wrong on this. Enjoy the way gay people claim their rights. You can do nothing about it.
Enjoy being a faggot supporter. You've lowered yourself to the 2nd class that they are. There's nothing you can do about being that very thing.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.
Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...
You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.
