Elisa Chan says anti-gay remarks are free speech

[scott]

Sorry but 'de facto' is completely unsubstantiated. And if said individual could make fortune 10 company money I do not think that they would hesitate to hire them even if there was a law with cost benefit being what it is. This notion that the average company is not vastly motivated by profit far beyond any other motive is specious at best.

I'll retract "de facto" and go with "actual".

http://www.equalityforum.com/fortune500

[TeyshaBlue]

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that an ordinance stating bigots cannot serve even if elected would be patently uncons ional. Boutons wouldn't see the problem however.

Artifact of freedom, tbh.

[scott]

Exactly. I'm pretty sure that an ordinance stating bigots cannot serve even if elected would be patently uncons ional. Boutons wouldn't see the problem however.

, we can't even prevent Kenyans from being President, how does Boutons think we can stop bigots from being on City Council?!?

[boutons_deux]

I can't stop the bigots, but the CC can, if they don't cave to the assorted "Christian" haters and bigots like Hagee

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll retract "de facto" and go with "actual".

http://www.equalityforum.com/fortune500

That is saying they do not discriminate against people that are sexual in hiring.

We are talking about discriminating against phobes in hiring which is what the ordinance would do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Channeling your SA210 I see. You are making assumptions about hiring practices just as much as I am. And yeah I am going way out on a limb saying that firms number one motivation is profit.....

[scott]

That is saying they do not discriminate against people that are sexual in hiring.

We are talking about discriminating against phobes in hiring which is what the ordinance would do.

Gotcha.

The non-discrimination part of the ordinance is important. I agree the "let's not hire phobes" part of it is rather silly.

Here is the City's fact sheet on the ordinance: http://sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/File...OFactSheet.pdf

*If* the ordinance only did what was described in the fact sheet, who here would still have an issue with it?

[scott]

Channeling your SA210 I see. You are making assumptions about hiring practices just as much as I am. And yeah I am going way out on a limb saying that firms number one motivation is profit.....

The conclusion you jumped to was that I was somehow suggesting otherwise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gotcha.

The non-discrimination part of the ordinance is important. I agree the "let's not hire phobes" part of it is rather silly.

Here is the City's fact sheet on the ordinance: http://sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/File...OFactSheet.pdf

*If* the ordinance only did what was described in the fact sheet, who here would still have an issue with it?

talking points. I prefer to look at it rather than be told about it.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/politic...-Ordinance.pdf

That is the actual ordinance in all of its glory.

They redacted the portion about prior acts after editing it twice but its gone so it is no longer an issue for me.

However it was in there as of 2 days ago as evidenced by http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/...t-non-discrim/.

[scott]

talking points. I prefer to look at it rather than be told about it.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/politic...-Ordinance.pdf

That is the actual ordinance in all of its glory.

They redacted the portion about prior acts after editing it twice but its gone so it is no longer an issue for me.

However it was in there as of 2 days ago as evidenced by http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/...t-non-discrim/.

I wasn't telling you about anything... I asked a question. If the ordinance did only what was described in the fact sheet, who would still have an issue with it?

Edit: sorry, I guess you did answer my question when you said "its gone so it is no longer an issue for me". My apologies.

[TeyshaBlue]

Posting and drinking beer is hard!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wasn't telling you about anything... I asked a question. If the ordinance did only what was described in the fact sheet, who would still have an issue with it?

Edit: sorry, I guess you did answer my question when you said "its gone so it is no longer an issue for me". My apologies.

Hey its all good mang sorry if I got a bit abrasive in the back and forth. Hope all is well.

[scott]

Somehow some conservative radio DJ started tweeting at me because I had an exchange with Diego once and now I'm caught up in their back and forth (I want to tweet back: why the do you keep tweeting me?).

In any event, I guess the new rage is that the proposed ordinance will somehow lead to pedophiles using the opposite bathroom

[diego]

which diego?

unless this law specifically forbids christians from saying they respectfully oppose same sex marriage, I dont see what the big deal is. Just be respectful about your bigotry, save the burn in guilt trip for yourself, and dont say re ed things

Articulating that in a law isnt ignoring the problem, its acknowledging it. Yes, representatives and cons uents alike can and will continue to do all sorts of things the law forbids them from. But having a law makes it clear that the cons uents approved a law stating that behavior is unacceptable. From what I read cons uents voted for their representatives to express themselves diplomatically, whats the problem?