Started By
Message
re: Local GOP: Going Full Retard (Arkansas)
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:38 pm to Killean
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:38 pm to Killean
I'm a vaguely conservative fellow in most regards... which is why I think we should have laws protecting people from just such issues. To me being moderately conservative is all about not wanting anyone messing in my affairs and returning that favor to those around me. Frankly its none of my business who my employees sleep with. As long as everyone is consenting adults great, have a grand old time. 
0
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:38 pm to Killean
Arkansas is an at will state. This ordinance will do NOTHING to protect those people from being fired if they are really being discriminated against. If there's an employer who's a dickhead and wants to discriminate, he's not going to write "Reason for Termination: He's gay."
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:41 pm to Killean
Here is another one of our local recently elected Right fighters.
LINK
He thinks we need this of course.
Religion 'protection' bill filed
Posted By Max Brantley on Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:21 PM
Rep. Bob Ballinger and a host of other like-minded legislators today filed an act nominally intended to protect religious freedom. They call it the Conscience Protection Act.
What it's meant to protect is people who claim a religious reason for discrimination against others. The core:
Religious freedom preserved. A state action shall not burden a person’s right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance:
(1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
The bill allows lawsuits by those offended.
This is a can of worms. Conscience clauses particularly become troublesome in health care practices — a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a birth control pill, for example; or a hospital that refuses to perform a life-saving abortion. I can see the law invoked in discrimination against gay people on religious grounds. And many, many more.
LINK
He thinks we need this of course.
Religion 'protection' bill filed
Posted By Max Brantley on Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:21 PM
Rep. Bob Ballinger and a host of other like-minded legislators today filed an act nominally intended to protect religious freedom. They call it the Conscience Protection Act.
What it's meant to protect is people who claim a religious reason for discrimination against others. The core:
Religious freedom preserved. A state action shall not burden a person’s right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance:
(1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
The bill allows lawsuits by those offended.
This is a can of worms. Conscience clauses particularly become troublesome in health care practices — a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a birth control pill, for example; or a hospital that refuses to perform a life-saving abortion. I can see the law invoked in discrimination against gay people on religious grounds. And many, many more.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:42 pm to opdogg20
quote:And?
Arkansas is an at will state. This ordinance will do NOTHING to protect those people from being fired if they are really being discriminated against. If there's an employer who's a dickhead and wants to discriminate, he's not going to write "Reason for Termination: He's gay."
Most states are at-will. There's still federal protection (that applies to private employers) preventing discrimination based on sex, gender, race, etc. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation, unfortunately, which is why Fayetteville tried to extend civil rights protections at the local level.
Since the federal law already exists and protects people based on most kinds of social status, why not extend that protection to sexual orientation?
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:51 pm to Hog on the Hill
I think you might be misunderstanding me on this, I'm not against protection from discrimination, I just think it's a VERY complicated task to write/enforce an ordinance on it.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:58 pm to Person of interest
Let's not forget the refusal to separate out MLK day and Robert E. Lee day.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 2:59 pm to opdogg20
LGBT's (and all races, nationalities, citizens of other planets) should all fall under the SAME EXACT RULES, when it comes to the hiring, firing, renting etc. rules.
All passing any kind of 'protection' legislation would do is make it much much harder for an employer to (rightfully) fire an underperforming employee if they wanted to play the 'LGBT discrimination' card.
If you want to be considered just like the rest of the population, live under the same rules as the rest of the population.
All passing any kind of 'protection' legislation would do is make it much much harder for an employer to (rightfully) fire an underperforming employee if they wanted to play the 'LGBT discrimination' card.
If you want to be considered just like the rest of the population, live under the same rules as the rest of the population.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 3:44 pm to WonderWartHawg
That's exactly what the frick they are talking about. You can't be fired for being a certain race, you can't be fired for being a certain gender and you can't be fired for your religious beliefs. You can however be fired for being gay, so they don't live under the same rights. This "protection" would be the exact same protection everybody else gets. It wouldn't be some fricking termination shield that says gays can't be fired at all. It would just say that they can't be fired for being gay. They could still be fired for being shitheads if applicable. I don't understand why conservatives who claim the be Christains, Christ-like, have such a fricking problem treating gays as human beings.
What would Jesus do? He sure as hell wouldn't draw a line in the sand and say it's us against them. He'd fricking die for their sins, your sins, my sins, and everybody else's all over again.
What would Jesus do? He sure as hell wouldn't draw a line in the sand and say it's us against them. He'd fricking die for their sins, your sins, my sins, and everybody else's all over again.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 3:55 pm to FleaMarketBill
quote:
It wouldn't be some fricking termination shield that says gays can't be fired at all.
In a perfect world maybe. You will be surprised (or maybe not) that card will be played, if it is dealt.
That's the only aspect I am against, not against treating gays as human beings.
P.S. - I also think the members of congress should have to live under the same laws they pass for us.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 4:06 pm to WonderWartHawg
I don't disagree that some people will play the card just as people play the race, gender, ethnicity, and religion cards now. There are also assholes who use the at-will law to get around those protections and will do so with this "protection". This law would just level the playing field from a legal standpoint. People will look for ways around laws now and forever but that shouldn't bar a certain group of people from receiving the same legal rights as everybody else.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 4:37 pm to WonderWartHawg
quote:So you want to tell LGBT people that since 'sexual orientation' wasn't included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, then tough luck, they have to wait until Congress its off their arse and passes another law that will add 'sexual orientation' to the list of protected classes?
LGBT's (and all races, nationalities, citizens of other planets) should all fall under the SAME EXACT RULES, when it comes to the hiring, firing, renting etc. rules.
All passing any kind of 'protection' legislation would do is make it much much harder for an employer to (rightfully) fire an underperforming employee if they wanted to play the 'LGBT discrimination' card.
If you want to be considered just like the rest of the population, live under the same rules as the rest of the population.
Even though we could fix the law at the local level, frick you, got mine, you have to wait?
That's a terrible approach.
How about this: we fix the laws at the local level, and when Congress decides to fix the federal law, we can drop our local laws and everyone is equally protected at the federal level. Anything else is short-sighted.
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 4:45 pm to Killean
No offense...but your first scenario is a he said/she said case
I'm sure the rest are all similar
I'm sure the rest are all similar
Posted on 2/3/15 at 5:01 pm to sugatowng
I didn't actually read any of them.. the point wasn't the individual merits of any particular case. It was just pointing out that it appears to be a lot more common than in person voter fraud 
Posted on 2/3/15 at 5:20 pm to sugatowng
quote:
No offense...but your first scenario is a he said/she said case
I'm sure the rest are all similar
edit: so you legitimately believe that no one has ever been fired because it was discovered that they were LGBT? I find that reeeeaaallly hard to believe
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 5:29 pm to Hog on the Hill
No...I don't believe that...but in my experience of firing people it was because they didn't do their job...
i could give 2 shits less what someone does on their personal time unless it leaks into my business
Seems like that pic was meant more for you with your jumping to conclusions
Edit...I would be classified as conservative btw
i could give 2 shits less what someone does on their personal time unless it leaks into my business
Seems like that pic was meant more for you with your jumping to conclusions
Edit...I would be classified as conservative btw
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 5:34 pm to sugatowng
quote:Cool, congrats on not being a shitlord. I never personally accused you of anything, so I'm not sure how you could construe me as jumping to conclusions.
No...I don't believe that...but in my experience of firing people it was because they didn't do their job...
i could give 2 shits less what someone does on their personal time unless it leaks into my business
Seems like that pic was meant more for you with your jumping to conclusions
You assumed that all the links posted were he-said-she-said, so the pic was appropriate. DWI
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 2/3/15 at 5:43 pm to Hog on the Hill
Well...looking through the first 7 it looks like I'm right...
People so stupid things at work and then blame someone else...
And of course I don't mean everybody that got fired
Site going downhill
People so stupid things at work and then blame someone else...
And of course I don't mean everybody that got fired
Site going downhill
Posted on 2/3/15 at 5:57 pm to SunHog
Hester is the worst.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 6:00 pm to piggilicious
In the debate with Petty, Hester either proved he hadn't read the law, or he was outright lying.
Either way, dude is a choad.
Either way, dude is a choad.
Posted on 2/3/15 at 9:10 pm to wmr
I know it isn't PC but here is how I feel about the issue: if you own, say, a restaurant and you choose to refuse service to someone because of their race or sexual oreitnation, that makes you a bigot. But I still say you are within your rights (or what should be your rights) to do so.
I think it could be a nice self-identification tool that would steer potential customers away from those types.
Besides, if you're gay, do you really want to be giving your business to a homophobe?
I think it could be a nice self-identification tool that would steer potential customers away from those types.
Besides, if you're gay, do you really want to be giving your business to a homophobe?
This post was edited on 2/3/15 at 9:12 pm
Page 2 of 7
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News