Reply With Quote
Hold up man...pedophiles and people who bang animals isn't even the same thing as sexuals. That's just ing stupid.
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.
Hold up man...pedophiles and people who bang animals isn't even the same thing as sexuals. That's just ing stupid.
I also would like to qualify my response to this post.
I wouldn't fire a person for being sexual, either. I know sexual 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 sexuals that don't go out in public and act like a flaming .
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.
Really? Go back 30 years and tell me society didn't look at sexuals the same way they look at pedophiles and animal ers.
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...
What are you society? Considering that the 70s were popular for sexuality, I don't think they looked at them the same way.
If they did...they shouldn't, because it's not the same thing.
Maybe I should have said 40 or 50 years. Sorry, I'm getting old.
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.
If you really want an eye-opening understanding of the "model" under which sexuals are succeeding in normalizing their lifestyle choice and, under which pedophiles and pervs of all shapes are hoping to do the same read, " sexuality 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 sexuality 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.
#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?
Explain this to me...What if his behavior outside the workplace cost your insurance company millions in health care costs?
LOL...I get the impression that you probably would not give gays business if you had a choice...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.
Yet I am willing to bet you go out to eat...in which case you probably have had a gay guy serving your food.
If the drug user is doing something illegal or doing a ty 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.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 sexual or drug user.
Just to be clear, I'd fire a drug user too.
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?
I basically agree with this...the difference is that I just don't like 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 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 smack but I'm not really a phobe...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 smack...therefore smack is an important and invaluable element of talking to someone and pissing them off...which is something I often feel compelled to do when someone disgrees with me...not sure why.
So, you're okay with a pastor owning an adult bookstore? The Church wouldn't have the right to fire him?
Or maybe because you had an embarrassingly, antagonistic, in-your-face, I'm gay and you at ude 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.
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.
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?
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 en led to equal treatment by employers either.
What if you get word he's butt- ing every 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.
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.
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.
Because what we do away from the job can have profound consequences to the business.
I believe I already said that.
And, where do they get it? Eventually, you track it back to a sexual somewhere up their sexual chain of partners. , even intravenous drug users get it from sexual 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.
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.
man i could give a less if someones found happiness in a 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 s, arabs, and socialists that his almightyness george w bush says threaten this country.
i guess im apathetic
Why exaggerate things?
I already said I'd fire the guy if he acted unprofessional.Or maybe because you had an embarrassingly, antagonistic, in-your-face, I'm gay and you at ude 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.
So basically, gays can be like anyone else.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.
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.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.
Of course I would...but something like that could happen to a heterosexual just as easily as a .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?
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.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 en led to equal treatment by employers either.
Dense? You're the one that keeps contracdicting yourself and trying to portray gross exaggations as routine occurences and acting like s are the only ones that up and get drunk.[What if you get word he's butt- ing every 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.
Then what exactly are you arguing with me about?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.
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.Because what we do away from the job can have profound consequences to the business.
I believe I already said that.
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.
Again, you call me dense...and half your responses are about how you don't have issues with s and then you snap back to a primitive mindeset that seems to indicate a belief that Aids is Gods punishment for being a got.And, where do they get it? Eventually, you track it back to a sexual somewhere up their sexual chain of partners. , even intravenous drug users get it from sexual 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.
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.
nothing excites whottt more than talking about s
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 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 at ude 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.
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).
Last edited by whottt; 01-30-2005 at 02:31 PM.
how exactly have i done so? this should be fun
hey man do you really think you are fooling anyone
answer the question
how can you equate sex between two consenting adults of the same gender with child molestation?
again you're lumping consensual sex between two adults with rape.
too ing funny!
Give him a week and he will take a year.
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.
Last edited by Yonivore; 01-31-2005 at 02:55 PM.
uh, randall is wrong. so is everyone saying that you should be able to fire a person for being gay.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
