College Republicans Plan 'Straight Pride Week'

[Nbadan]

UPDATED: 11:02 AM EST January 28, 2005



EDMOND, Okla. -- A University of Central Oklahoma student group is planning what it calls "Straight Pride Week" on campus.

Members of the College Republicans said despite objections from some, they have every right to celebrate.

"The general gist is that if you are a straight student on campus be proud, be loud, this is your time to shine," said college Republican Kyle Houts.

The group has posted fliers on campus that read, "we're here, we're conservative, we're out."

more...

The KCRA Channel (http://www.thekcrachannel.com/education/4139721/detail.html)

What's next for these clowns? White Pride week? :lol

This years planned gathering for whi...I mean 'straight pride week' will include such meaningfull, introspective activities as,

http://www.sunchase.com/images/gallery/images/keg_stand.jpg
Keg Stands

http://pigsarseairlines.tripod.com/vomit.JPG
Power puking into a paper bag!

and of course,

http://skyjammer170.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/frank8thmn.jpg
The gratuitous wet T-Shirt contest (whites only obviously)

[Drachen]

Hey I really dont see anything wrong with the idea itself, and I am very liberal. If they want to be straight and proud and let everyone know it, why not, there are gay pride weeks. As long as it doesnt degenerate into violence or hate-mongering (which it may) then there is nothing wrong with that. Its just like BET, if someone tried a WET then it would be flamed, but why?

[Nbadan]

If they want to be straight and proud and let everyone know it, why not, there are gay pride weeks. As long as it doesnt degenerate into violence or hate-mongering (which it may) then there is nothing wrong with that.

Straight pride week on a college campus? Probably not being sponsored by any fraternity. :lol

They are just doing this to be intolerant towards gays.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think they're doing it because they're allowed free speech like everyone else, and are proud of their sexual heritage.

Nowadays we live in a fucked up world where the more liberal, leftist folks really have freedom of speech, while those with conservative values or traditional values are persecuted for being "intolerant."

That's a large part of my problem with assholes like Dan. It's only free speech if fuckwads like you are saying/doing what you want.

If you're conservative, or if you believe in God, or if you're white, or if you're straight, and acknowledge that fact, you're "persecuting others."

You want to talk about freedom of speech and being politically correct? Take a look in the mirror.

These kids aren't doing it out of intolerance for gay people, they're doing it because they're proud to be straight.

And it doesn't surprise me at all that your dumb ass doesn't get it.

[NameDropper]

Nothing like hitting some strange to prove your manhood.

[dcole50]

seems silly .. but it's their time. if they wish to spend their time doing this, that's fine.

i don't think it's homophobic .. asinine is a better word.

[MannyIsGod]

I think all pride weeks are silly, who cares? Dan, you're a turnd. You should have "shit head pride" week.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

dcole,

So what do you think of all the other stuff? Gay Pride Week, etc.?

[exstatic]

Let this be clear: this is not about being proud to be straight. I have the same response to those who advocate white pride week: every week is white pride week. You turn on the TV, and on the most popular shows, you see primarily white people in the leading roles. Watch the ads. Again, primarily white people. White people should have NO problem with their image within our culture. It's everywhere.

It's the same with straight people. You had Queer Eye, Ellen, and Will and Grace as representatives on network TV showing a glimpse of the gay culture. That's it. Every other show that has ever been on network TV is straight oriented, with maybe an occasional ambigous character. Every week is straight pride week.

That being said, if these idiots want to show their immaturity and pettiness, I'm all for it. It would be funny if no one showed up.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Gimme a break on network TV. Shit, on MTV on the Real World and all their other shit, they have a token straight guy, the rest are gay.

It shouldn't be about pride or stereotypes or anything else, it shouldn't matter. All that shit just contributes to the further decay of our society.

[exstatic]

Shit, on MTV on the Real World and all their other shit, they have a token straight guy, the rest are gay.

Yeah, and we all know how real reality TV is.

[dcole50]

dcole,

So what do you think of all the other stuff? Gay Pride Week, etc.?
it's all meaningless and a waste of time, in my opinion. if someone wants to hold a straight or gay pride week, then fine. it just seems pointless to me.

the gay pride week makes slightly more sense, because it's goal ... i assume ... is to promote tolerence.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well as long as you're consistent, I'm cool with that. I think it's all retarded. There should only be one week here in America: American Pride Week.

[whottt]

Let this be clear: it's okay to be racist as long as you aren't white.

[whottt]

I'm kinda with Dcole on this...I think it's stupid but if I have learned to live with fags massing together shouting "we're queer, we're here, get used to it"...I can live with this as well.

I personally wish everyone would mind their own fucking business and not protest about stupid stuff that actually hurts the cause of legitimate protesting.

And I wish DeGeneres would shut the fuck up about being a lesbian...no one gives a fuck and she has ruined what was actually a pretty decent comedic career with her militant carpet munching.

[whottt]

the gay pride week makes slightly more sense, because it's goal ... i assume ... is to promote tolerence.

I've never noticed them trying to promote tolerance...I've noticed them acting like a bunch of obnoxious queens with a "nanny nanny boo boo you can't stop us" attitude.

They aren't promoting tolerance with that crap...they're being a bunch of cunts.

And I think they do more harm to their cause than good with that BS.

You know what the gays could do to impress me?

Get together and have a pro military rally in support of our country, let it be known that they are gay, but not make the focus being them acting like a bunch of preening self absorbed sissies. Let the focus be that they support our country and the men that give them a right to be a bunch of hedonistic cock swallowers...that would impress me.

[Duff McCartney]

I've never noticed them trying to promote tolerance...I've noticed them acting like a bunch of obnoxious queens with a "nanny nanny boo boo you can't stop us" attitude.

They aren't promoting tolerance with that crap...they're being a bunch of cunts.

And I think they do more harm to their cause than good with that BS.

You know what the gays could do to impress me?

Get together and have a pro military rally in support of our country, let it be known that they are gay, but not make the focus being them acting like a bunch of preening self absorbed sissies. Let the focus be that they support our country and the men that give them a right to be a bunch of hedonistic cock swallowers...that would impress me.

I'm getting the impression that if this was the 1950s...whottt would be saying the same thing about black people.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm getting the impression that Duff missed his point completely.

[whottt]

I'm getting the impression that if this was the 1950s...whottt would be saying the same thing about black people.

No I wouldn't...Blacks were discriminated against and were second class citizens, Blacks were fighting for the right to be people.

Gays stand for sucking dicks and taking it up the ass, a sexual lifestyle.

No equating the two in my book.

And I'm not challenging gays rights to be gays or to protest, they should have the same rights as every one else...but do you see straignt people massing and chortling about their sexual preference?

No...which is why the parade discussed in this thread is such a big deal.

I'm just saying they don't seem to stand for much as a group other than guzzling cum. Big fucking deal...If they want to suck dicks then do so...but why do they need to drag out a preference for dick into the public arena? What exactly are they hoping to accomplish? To reafirm the sterotype that they are just a bunch of dudes whose whole existence is governed by sex?


There's nothing noble about that.

And hey...you need to talk to some blacks about their stance on gays sometime. You might be surprised.

[Yonivore]

So, whottt, you see a difference between "accidents of birth" and "personal choice" after all. Good for you.

What exactly are they hoping to accomplish?
To normalize an abnormal lifestyle. That's their ultimate goal.

They are following the "protest model" of the LEGITIMATE civil rights and equal rights movements that preceeded them with the hope (and, with much success, I hasten to add) of gaining public sympathy.

Once, homosexuality is no longer considered abnormal human behavior (and they've succeeded through politics rather than science to convince the APA [American Psychological Association] of this) then they're entitled to the holy grail of this country, protected class and "equal protection," (actually translated, in this case, to preferential treatment) under the law.

You're already seeing a push for insuring "partners" and "cohabitators" (do you see where this is all related to our other thread discussion yet?). Now, they're challenging the state through same-sex marriage nonsense.

Pedophiles are already seeing the promise of this approach to normalizing the adult/adolescent and eventually, adult/child sexual relationship.

It won't be long when we'll be receiving invitations to weddings between our Uncle Fred and his favorite mare.

It's all slippery slope stuff.

[whottt]

So, whottt, you see a difference between "accidents of birth" and "personal choice" after all. Good for you.

I wouldn't fire a guy for being gay or deny him the right to employment...not the same thing. I just think it's stupid when they gather and act like a bunch of obnoxious fags.

And that's my right to think that.

[Yonivore]

I wouldn't fire a guy for being gay or deny him the right to employment...not the same thing. I just think it's stupid when they gather and act like a bunch of obnoxious fags.

And that's my right to think that.
First, I edited my last post with more content, you may or may not want to look.

Second, if your business relied on your employees not acting like obnoxious fags or engaging in promiscuous sexual behaviors that could result in your insurance forking out expensive treatments for A.I.D.S. or Hep C or other such nonsense...then would you fire him?

And, I'd still like to know where you get this "right to employment" nonsense. If we had a right to employment, unemployment would be 0%.

[whottt]

First, I edited my last post with more content, you may or may not want to look.

Second, if your business relied on your employees not acting like obnoxious fags or engaging in promiscuous sexual behaviors that could result in your insurance forking out expensive treatments for A.I.D.S. or Hep C or other such nonsense...then would you fire him?


In the place of work I'd expect them to act like a proffesional. If they walked around the office chanting, I'm queer, I'm here, get used to it...I'd tell him to stop it or I'll fire him.

If he was in a position of authority and harrassing another employee I'd fire his ass but I'd fire anyone that did that...

And no, I wouldn't deny the guy employment because he might be at risk to get aids or hep c. Those diseases aren't limited to gays.

[Yonivore]

In the place of work I'd expect them to act like a proffesional. If they walked around the office chanting, I'm queer, I'm here, get used to it...I'd tell him to stop it or I'll fire him.
But what if his behavior, outside the workplace, caused you to lose business? What if his behavior outside the workplace cost your insurance company millions in health care costs?

If he was in a position of authority and harrassing another employee I'd fire his ass but I'd fire anyone that did that...
I get the impression you believe our personal behaviors and lifestyles, outside the workplace, have no effect on the stature, reputation, or well-being of the employer.

I believe you couldn't be more wrong.

And no, I wouldn't deny the guy employment because he might be at risk to get aids or hep c. Those diseases aren't limited to gays.
Then you'd be a stupid employer. Gays and Intravenous drug users, their spouses, and partners are thousands of times more likely to contract A.I.D.S. or Hep C than the general population. And, if the truth were told, the poor souls, in the general population, who contract these diseases probably did so due to the irresponsible or reckless lifestyle, behavior, or selfish choices of a homosexual or drug user.

Just to be clear, I'd fire a drug user too.

[whottt]

So, whottt, you see a difference between "accidents of birth" and "personal choice" after all. Good for you.

To normalize an abnormal lifestyle. That's their ultimate goal.

Normal people don't gather in public and chant obnoxious slogans about their sexual preference.


If they want to normalize their lifestyle in my eyes(which is really unnecessary)...then show me something that proves they are normal, that they have diverse beliefs.

I see some fags getting the US military's back(pun not intended) and I am going to come to the conclusion that those are some good fags.

It's a shame really...I know there are gays in the US military...and I actually knew a guy once who was gay who could probably beat anyone's ass...




They are following the "protest model" of the LEGITIMATE civil rights and equal rights movements that preceeded them with the hope (and, with much success, I hasten to add) of gaining public sympathy.


Right, and that's unnecessary IMO.


Once, homosexuality is no longer considered abnormal human behavior (and they've succeeded through politics rather than science to convince the APA [American Psychological Association] of this) then they're entitled to the holy grail of this country, protected class and "equal protection," (actually translated, in this case, to preferential treatment) under the law.


You see that's fine with me...I don't deny them their equal rights. But I think going around chanting gay slogans and being concerned with little else hurts their philosophical goal.


You're already seeing a push for insuring "partners" and "cohabitators" (do you see where this is all related to our other thread discussion yet?). Now, they're challenging the state through same-sex marriage nonsense.

That's okay with me...we haven't worked all the details out on that yet but it's really not that big of a deal to me.

I can see their right to have a beneficiary etc.



Pedophiles are already seeing the promise of this approach to normalizing the adult/adolescent and eventually, adult/child sexual relationship.


And this will clearly be wrong...but I know there are elements that do try and abuse it...

I don't equate gays with pedophiles though anymore than I equate the civil rights movement with gay parades.







It's all slippery slope stuff.

It's pretty black and white to me....

I mean it's easy to see the difference between Pedophillia and Homosexuality....but I don't disagree that there are those that think they are cousins.

[Duff McCartney]

And I'm not challenging gays rights to be gays or to protest, they should have the same rights as every one else...but do you see straignt people massing and chortling about their sexual preference?

I don't think I've heard of a straight man being beaten to death because of his sexual preference. But I've heard of a gay man being beaten to death because of his sexual preference.

[Duff McCartney]

Pedophiles are already seeing the promise of this approach to normalizing the adult/adolescent and eventually, adult/child sexual relationship.

It won't be long when we'll be receiving invitations to weddings between our Uncle Fred and his favorite mare.

Hold up man...pedophiles and people who bang animals isn't even the same thing as homosexuals. That's just fucking stupid.

[Yonivore]

I wouldn't fire a guy for being gay or deny him the right to employment...not the same thing. I just think it's stupid when they gather and act like a bunch of obnoxious fags.

And that's my right to think that.
I also would like to qualify my response to this post.

I wouldn't fire a person for being homosexual, either. I know homosexual men who have been in monogamous relationships with 1 partner for many years and, quite likely, do not have any more chance of contracting A.I.D.S. than I do. I also know homosexuals that don't go out in public and act like a flaming queer.

Chances are, I wouldn't even know they were gay if they hadn't told me. I'm perfectly alright with the gay that sees his sexual orientation as a personal choice that deserves no more preference or protections that, say, a member of the Moose Lodge.

What I was trying to say was that I should be free to fire a person (gay or not) who engages in lifestyle choices that place my business at risk for loss. Period.

It's the same argument we're having in the other thread.

[Yonivore]

Hold up man...pedophiles and people who bang animals isn't even the same thing as homosexuals. That's just fucking stupid.
Really? Go back 30 years and tell me society didn't look at homosexuals the same way they look at pedophiles and animal fuckers.

The fact of the matter is, that organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) can even exist at all is a testament to where this is all leading. And they are taking encouragement from the success the gay movement has enjoyed.

In fact, you've already got members of the liberal intelligencia at some Universities and some psychiatrists and psychologists arguing that consensual sex between minors and adults may not be harmful...

[Duff McCartney]

Really? Go back 30 years and tell me society didn't look at homosexuals the same way they look at pedophiles and animal fuckers.

What are you society? Considering that the 70s were popular for homosexuality, I don't think they looked at them the same way.

If they did...they shouldn't, because it's not the same thing.

[Yonivore]

What are you society? Considering that the 70s were popular for homosexuality, I don't think they looked at them the same way.
Maybe I should have said 40 or 50 years. Sorry, I'm getting old.

If they did...they shouldn't, because it's not the same thing.
You'll find seemingly reasonable, intelligent, and "upstanding" members of professional groups such as University professors, Psychologists, and Psychiatrists that will argue it is the same thing and, therefore, okie dokie.

Because you and I don't think it's the same doesn't mean there's not a concerted propaganda war being waged, long term, to pull it over on a society that just doesn't seem to want to be bothered with such stuff.

Perverts are a patient bunch...they'll take their successes in small portions as long as they see progress to their eventual goal.

[Yonivore]

If you really want an eye-opening understanding of the "model" under which homosexuals are succeeding in normalizing their lifestyle choice and, under which pedophiles and pervs of all shapes are hoping to do the same read, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.

Even I wasn't aware of the outrageous politics that took place in the APA that led to homosexuality being taken off the "mental disorders" list...and, how easy it was to do.

Don't take my word for it. It's sourced, well-referenced, and well-reported by the Doctor.

By the way, I believe he's a physician that treats A.I.D.S. sufferers and is extremely sympathetic to their plight. It seemed to me to be a very objective treatment of the subject.

[whottt]

But what if his behavior, outside the workplace, caused you to lose business?

#1.It's none of my business what he does outside the workplace unless it's illegal activity.

But..how? By people not doing business with me because I had a gay employee?

Just depends on what he did...if it was over the top I probably would fire him...

If he's just going out and smoking a little pole on his free time I could care less.

What would you do if the guy was the best employee you had?



What if his behavior outside the workplace cost your insurance company millions in health care costs?

Explain this to me...


I get the impression you believe our personal behaviors and lifestyles, outside the workplace, have no effect on the stature, reputation, or well-being of the employer.

I believe you couldn't be more wrong.

LOL...I get the impression that you probably would not give gays business if you had a choice...

Yet I am willing to bet you go out to eat...in which case you probably have had a gay guy serving your food.




Then you'd be a stupid employer. Gays and Intravenous drug users, their spouses, and partners are thousands of times more likely to contract A.I.D.S. or Hep C than the general population. And, if the truth were told, the poor souls, in the general population, who contract these diseases probably did so due to the irresponsible or reckless lifestyle, behavior, or selfish choices of a homosexual or drug user.

Just to be clear, I'd fire a drug user too.

If the drug user is doing something illegal or doing a shitty job I'll fire him...but if I can't tell anything by his performance at work I am not going to force him to reveal details of his private life to work for me.

And the way I see it...two gay guys living a monogamous lifestyle are no more likely to get Aids or Hep C than a typica couple...less likely than a hetero couple where one or the other is engaging in infidelity.

Hetero people do get Aids and Hep C often...a lot of women get it without doing anything deserving of that disease...those diseases don't just strike the people that "deserve" them...and truthfully no one deserves them.


Let me ask you something...you are a pretty pro US guy and I assume you are pro military...Proably inclined to favor a guy who was a vet...

What would you do if a guy walked into your business that was an admitted gay guy...yet wasn't a flamer, and who was a verified war hero who was highly qualified to work for you?

Would you give that guy a job? Even if it might cost you business? Would you think less of him if he was gay?

[whottt]

Chances are, I wouldn't even know they were gay if they hadn't told me. I'm perfectly alright with the gay that sees his sexual orientation as a personal choice that deserves no more preference or protections that, say, a member of the Moose Lodge.

What I was trying to say was that I should be free to fire a person (gay or not) who engages in lifestyle choices that place my business at risk for loss. Period.

It's the same argument we're having in the other thread.

I basically agree with this...the difference is that I just don't like fag parades...regardless of whether or not they have the right to have them...

IOW...if they want to prove how normal they are to me...going around having dick sucking parades is not what is going to convince me of their normalcy.

It'll re-afirm the worst stereotypes about them in my eyes.

And by the way...I talk a lot of homosmack but I'm not really a homophobe...I don't actually think TPark is gay when I call him a Pop sucker...It's just that IMO nothing pisses a guy off more than having his masculinity questioned and nothing questions masculinity like homo smack...therefore homosmack is an important and invaluable element of talking shit to someone and pissing them off...which is something I often feel compelled to do when someone disgrees with me...not sure why.

[Yonivore]

#1.It's none of my business what he does outside the workplace unless it's illegal activity.
So, you're okay with a pastor owning an adult bookstore? The Church wouldn't have the right to fire him?

But..how? By people not doing business with me because I had a gay employee?
Or maybe because you had an embarrassingly, antagonistic, in-your-face, I'm gay and fuck you attitude employee. Many people might wonder why you would tolerate such a person on your staff and, then, wonder if you had the business judgement to be worth doing business with.

Like I said, I've known and worked with gays who were none of those things and, as far as I know, there were no problems at work or elsewhere. I've also worked with the other type and everyone was relieved and grateful when cause was found to can their asses...even other gays.

Just depends on what he did...if it was over the top I probably would fire him...
One man's over the top is another man's reasonable behavior. It's a subjective standard and, therefore, you should at least acknowledge that some people's threshhold for "over the top" may be a little lower than your's.

If he's just going out and smoking a little pole on his free time I could care less.
Really? What if he's smoking some pole, gets high, and wrecks out - ending up on the hospital - the night before he's to clinch a $30million dollar account that's been in the works for months? (Yonivore has seen this happen.). Then, would you care?

What would you do if the guy was the best employee you had?
Then, chances are, I wouldn't know or care. But that's my choice as an employer. There's another concept for you, employees aren't entitled to equal treatment by employers either.

Explain this to me...
What if you get word he's butt-fucking every queer in the gay district and that you believe it's only a matter of time before he's dying of A.I.D.S.? There, clear enough? Don't be dense.

LOL...I get the impression that you probably would not give gays business if you had a choice...
You'd be wrong. I rarely concern myself with the sexual orientation of those with whom I do business unless they make it an issue. Then, well, that they think it's important may say that they place more weight on my acceptance of their lifestyle choice than on the merits of our business relationship...and, yeah, in that case I might be more inclined to seek someone else to hire or do business with.

Yet I am willing to bet you go out to eat...in which case you probably have had a gay guy serving your food.
Very rarely, but yeah, you're probably right. I don't lose sleep over such things. I'm not sure why you think that's important though.

If the drug user is doing something illegal or doing a shitty job I'll fire him...but if I can't tell anything by his performance at work I am not going to force him to reveal details of his private life to work for me.
Because what we do away from the job can have profound consequences to the business.

And the way I see it...two gay guys living a monogamous lifestyle are no more likely to get Aids or Hep C than a typica couple...less likely than a hetero couple where one or the other is engaging in infidelity.
I believe I already said that.

Hetero people do get Aids and Hep C often...a lot of women get it without doing anything deserving of that disease...those diseases don't just strike the people that "deserve" them...and truthfully no one deserves them.
And, where do they get it? Eventually, you track it back to a homosexual somewhere up their sexual chain of partners. Hell, even intravenous drug users get it from homosexual drug users who share their needles.

Let me ask you something...you are a pretty pro US guy and I assume you are pro military...Proably inclined to favor a guy who was a vet...

What would you do if a guy walked into your business that was an admitted gay guy...yet wasn't a flamer, and who was a verified war hero who was highly qualified to work for you?

Would you give that guy a job? Even if it might cost you business? Would you think less of him if he was gay?
I'd hire him on the spot and I don't know where you'd get the idea he'd cause me to lose business.

[Yonivore]

You know, it occurs to me (because of your restaurant analogy) that we're approaching this whole topic with two different types of jobs in mind.

You with a job-type of job in mind and me with a career-type of job in mind.

I could really care less what minimum wage and entry level employees do in their spare time (with some reservations over what they cost me in insurance); they're a dime a dozen. But, I was talking more of the career employee who is an investment of company and for which hiring, training, and retaining is a major undertaking.

[violentkitten]

man i could give a fuck less if someones found happiness in a dick in their ass. it doesnt appeal to me but im not gonna let my disgust turn me into a supporter for giving handouts to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else just to defeat the queers, arabs, and socialists that his almightyness george w bush says threaten this country.

i guess im homoapathetic

[whottt]

So, you're okay with a pastor owning an adult bookstore? The Church wouldn't have the right to fire him?

Why exaggerate things?


Or maybe because you had an embarrassingly, antagonistic, in-your-face, I'm gay and fuck you attitude employee. Many people might wonder why you would tolerate such a person on your staff and, then, wonder if you had the business judgement to be worth doing business with.

I already said I'd fire the guy if he acted unprofessional.


Like I said, I've known and worked with gays who were none of those things and, as far as I know, there were no problems at work or elsewhere. I've also worked with the other type and everyone was relieved and grateful when cause was found to can their asses...even other gays.

So basically, gays can be like anyone else.


One man's over the top is another man's reasonable behavior. It's a subjective standard and, therefore, you should at least acknowledge that some people's threshhold for "over the top" may be a little lower than your's.

That's fine but ultimately I still don't think an employer has the right to pry or try to control what an individual does in the privacy of his own home.


Really? What if he's smoking some pole, gets high, and wrecks out - ending up on the hospital - the night before he's to clinch a $30million dollar account that's been in the works for months? (Yonivore has seen this happen.). Then, would you care?

Of course I would...but something like that could happen to a heterosexual just as easily as a fag.


Then, chances are, I wouldn't know or care. But that's my choice as an employer. There's another concept for you, employees aren't entitled to equal treatment by employers either.

Again...I fail to see where an employer has the right to dictate or even ask what an employee does in the privacy of his own home.



[What if you get word he's butt-fucking every queer in the gay district and that you believe it's only a matter of time before he's dying of A.I.D.S.? There, clear enough? Don't be dense.

Dense? You're the one that keeps contracdicting yourself and trying to portray gross exaggations as routine occurences and acting like fags are the only ones that fuck up and get drunk.




You'd be wrong. I rarely concern myself with the sexual orientation of those with whom I do business unless they make it an issue. Then, well, that they think it's important may say that they place more weight on my acceptance of their lifestyle choice than on the merits of our business relationship...and, yeah, in that case I might be more inclined to seek someone else to hire or do business with.

Then what exactly are you arguing with me about?




Because what we do away from the job can have profound consequences to the business.

I believe I already said that.

So? Getting on the highway can have profound consequences upon your life...You can't control every aspect of someone's life and even if you do, you are still unlikely to prevent unforseen problems.

I'm sorry but I see you as having an almost tyrannical and controlling mindset.

It's as much a privilege to own a business in this country as it is to live and work here.





And, where do they get it? Eventually, you track it back to a homosexual somewhere up their sexual chain of partners. Hell, even intravenous drug users get it from homosexual drug users who share their needles.

I'd hire him on the spot and I don't know where you'd get the idea he'd cause me to lose business.

Again, you call me dense...and half your responses are about how you don't have issues with fags and then you snap back to a primitive mindeset that seems to indicate a belief that Aids is Gods punishment for being a faggot.

I might be willing to agree with you if I hadn't seen many people, in some cases children, that had Hep C and Aids.

Regardless of what PCT of a certain demographic it effect...it effects everyone.

By the way, lesbians are largely aids and hep C free...if you truly are worried about having employees getting aids etc, I'd say you should hire nothing but lesbians...who are gay by the way.

[violentkitten]

nothing excites whottt more than talking about queers

[whottt]

You know, it occurs to me (because of your restaurant analogy) that we're approaching this whole topic with two different types of jobs in mind.

You with a job-type of job in mind and me with a career-type of job in mind.

I could really care less what minimum wage and entry level employees do in their spare time (with some reservations over what they cost me in insurance); they're a dime a dozen. But, I was talking more of the career employee who is an investment of company and for which hiring, training, and retaining is a major undertaking.

No, I pretty much think an employer has no right to be a dictator or pry into the private lives of his employees no matter what he is paying them.

If the information should get out...well that's a different thing entirely. But as far as forcing them to reveal that information? No, he's got no right...trying to become rich doesn't give someone the right of being a monarch.

And while you may think minimum wage and entry level employees are largely unimportant...when you are dealing with a totally public business...those employees can do a hell of a lot more damage to you than a polesmoking Mangager or GM who toils largely in the background.

I think you have kind of an irresponsible attitude towards a segment of your employees, that seems to indicate a gross lack of good business sense in certain aspects of certain types of businesses.

[whottt]

nothing excites whottt more than talking about queers

And nothing excites violent kitten more than spending half his time running around the forum pretending to be one(or being who he really is).

[violentkitten]

how exactly have i done so? this should be fun

[whottt]

hey man do you really think you are fooling anyone

[violentkitten]

answer the question bitch

[dcole50]

Pedophiles are already seeing the promise of this approach to normalizing the adult/adolescent and eventually, adult/child sexual relationship.how can you equate sex between two consenting adults of the same gender with child molestation?


Really? Go back 30 years and tell me society didn't look at homosexuals the same way they look at pedophiles and animal fuckers.again you're lumping consensual sex between two adults with rape.

[Clandestino]

I think all pride weeks are silly, who cares? Dan, you're a turnd. You should have "shit head pride" week.

too fucking funny!

[Guru of Nothing]

I think all pride weeks are silly, who cares? Dan, you're a turnd. You should have "shit head pride" week.

Give him a week and he will take a year.

[SpursWoman]

Give him a week and he will take a year.



YOMANK! :cuss :cuss




:lmao

[Yonivore]

Now can we fire the fatties?

As obesity problem worsens, lawmakers grapple with proposals to stop it

KRISTEN WYATT

Associated Press



Randall, the Democrat pushing for mandatory obesity coverage, said lawmakers are foolish not to consider obesity a public threat worth new laws.

[dcole50]

uh, randall is wrong. so is everyone saying that you should be able to fire a person for being gay.

[Yonivore]

uh, randall is wrong. so is everyone saying that you should be able to fire a person for being gay.
No. My argument has always been that a private employer or publicly held company, with no government contracts or ties, should be able to hire or fire a person for any reason whatsoever.