Except that Catholics donated a shitload of money and voted in favor of the prop in much larger numbers. The Mormons got more money, but the Catholics actually got more votes. Hence my link on previous page regarding the archbishop of the San Francisco diocese.
That's their individual right. What Catholics did not do was mount a centrally planned campaign for prop 8. Parish's weren't asking members to do anything, let alone requiring them to do anything (which would never happen).
You're basically equating the mormon churches planned out assault on their right to marry with individual catholics agreeing with prop 8, when they are very different things.
It's certainly their right. It's also the public's right to protest.
The archbishop ordered priests in the diocese to publicly recommend voting yes. He, by his own proud admission, brought in the Mormons*, with whom he had a great relationship after having served as Bishop of the Salt Lake City area for several years. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic church's fraternal order, raised a bunch of money. It's more plausibly deniable than what the LDS did, but given that the Mormons account for (from memory, so could be off), what, 1% of California's voting makeup, and the Catholics account for some very high percentage (I'd heard 30%, which seems not right to me, and this chart makes it appear to be more like 25%, averaging the LA and San Francisco areas, which may not be right), anyone who wants to spew hateful crap about which one individual group made Yes on 8 happen probably wants to point fingers at the group that actually did a sizeable chunk of the voting in addition to the money-raising.
ETA: If you didn't follow the link, one of the original articles on which I based on my post was an interview with the LDS church in which they said that they wouldn't have gotten so involved had the California Catholic hierarchy extended the hand of friendship and told them that California Christians would have their back. The LDS was essentially a hardline group brought in to do what moderate-front Christian groups couldn't, and that shouldn't excuse the moderate-front Christian groups from culpability.
Mormons, on a per-capita basis, were way, way more involved than Catholics. They donated way more money per capita, and the Mormon Church put itself forward as the champion of hating gay people way more than any of the other churches. The fact that they're easier to target because there aren't nearly as many Mormon churches as there are Catholic or other Protestant churches doesn't hurt, either.
Except that Catholics donated a shitload of money and voted in favor of the prop in much larger numbers. The Mormons got more money, but the Catholics actually got more votes. Hence my link on previous page regarding the archbishop of the San Francisco diocese.
That's their individual right. What Catholics did not do was mount a centrally planned campaign for prop 8. Parish's weren't asking members to do anything, let alone requiring them to do anything (which would never happen).
You're basically equating the mormon churches planned out assault on their right to marry with individual catholics agreeing with prop 8, when they are very different things.
It's certainly their right. It's also the public's right to protest.
The archbishop ordered priests in the diocese to publicly recommend voting yes. He, by his own proud admission, brought in the Mormons*, with whom he had a great relationship after having served as Bishop of the Salt Lake City area for several years. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic church's fraternal order, raised a bunch of money. It's more plausibly deniable than what the LDS did, but given that the Mormons account for (from memory, so could be off), what, 1% of California's voting makeup, and the Catholics account for some very high percentage (I'd heard 30%, which seems not right to me, and this chart makes it appear to be more like 25%, averaging the LA and San Francisco areas, which may not be right), anyone who wants to spew hateful crap about which one individual group made Yes on 8 happen probably wants to point fingers at the group that actually did a sizeable chunk of the voting in addition to the money-raising.
ETA: If you didn't follow the link, one of the original articles on which I based on my post was an interview with the LDS church in which they said that they wouldn't have gotten so involved had the California Catholic hierarchy extended the hand of friendship and told them that California Christians would have their back. The LDS was essentially a hardline group brought in to do what moderate-front Christian groups couldn't, and that shouldn't excuse the moderate-front Christian groups from culpability.
Mormons, on a per-capita basis, were way, way more involved than Catholics. They donated way more money per capita, and the Mormon Church put itself forward as the champion of hating gay people way more than any of the other churches. The fact that they're easier to target because there aren't nearly as many Mormon churches as there are Catholic or other Protestant churches doesn't hurt, either.
No argument there. I think that's a completely valid point.
I just don't think the Catholics should be let off the hook, given that they invited the Mormons in to help, and then brought in more votes, period, not per capita, than any other religion in California.
The Catholics are just as bigoted, and had a lot more people to vote with. They're just more polite about it, and didn't raise as much money. I'm saying this as somebody who renounced his Catholic faith at least in part over this.
Mormons, on a per-capita basis, were way, way more involved than Catholics. They donated way more money per capita, and the Mormon Church put itself forward as the champion of hating gay people way more than any of the other churches. The fact that they're easier to target because there aren't nearly as many Mormon churches as there are Catholic or other Protestant churches doesn't hurt, either.
No argument there. I think that's a completely valid point.
I just don't think the Catholics should be let off the hook, given that they invited the Mormons in to help, and then brought in more votes, period, not per capita, than any other religion in California.
The Catholics are just as bigoted, and had a lot more people to vote with. They're just more polite about it, and didn't raise as much money. I'm saying this as somebody who renounced his Catholic faith at least in part over this.
I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook. I know if you look at numbers, they didn't contribute nearly as much to the pro-8 campaign as Mormons, either monetarily or manpower-wise. Further, I'll bet you the support as a percentage for prop 8 among Catholics was substantially lower than the pro-8 support among Mormons. In fact, I'm guessing Mormon support was nigh-unanimous, whereas I'll bet there was a significant amount of dissent among Catholics.
Basically, I'm saying that by targeting Mormons, there's less collateral damage.
Mormons, on a per-capita basis, were way, way more involved than Catholics. They donated way more money per capita, and the Mormon Church put itself forward as the champion of hating gay people way more than any of the other churches. The fact that they're easier to target because there aren't nearly as many Mormon churches as there are Catholic or other Protestant churches doesn't hurt, either.
No argument there. I think that's a completely valid point.
I just don't think the Catholics should be let off the hook, given that they invited the Mormons in to help, and then brought in more votes, period, not per capita, than any other religion in California.
The Catholics are just as bigoted, and had a lot more people to vote with. They're just more polite about it, and didn't raise as much money. I'm saying this as somebody who renounced his Catholic faith at least in part over this.
I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook. I know if you look at numbers, they didn't contribute nearly as much to the pro-8 campaign as Mormons, either monetarily or manpower-wise. Further, I'll bet you the support as a percentage for prop 8 among Catholics was substantially lower than the pro-8 support among Mormons. In fact, I'm guessing Mormon support was nigh-unanimous, whereas I'll bet there was a significant amount of dissent among Catholics.
Basically, I'm saying that by targeting Mormons, there's less collateral damage.
And again, I can agree with that. Call it my personal baggage for focusing on the Catholics (above and beyond the note that there were more Catholic Yes on 8 votes than Mormon Yes on 8 votes, by a long long ways -- and I wish there were some way to change that, the same way that people want to focus on the Mormons to stop the money from pouring in quite so readily next time).
I am surprised that the Catholic Church was this much involved from what I know most churches in Los Angeles area are starting to make payments for the sex crimes. So really seems bad PR move to even have a say here. I work in West Hollywood and it seems nothing is happening.
Horus on
“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...”
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
It doesn't help when the gay marriage movement cloaks itself in the imagery of the 1960s Civil Rights movement - especially among the older blacks who actually lived through the 60s. You're likely never going to convince blacks that gays have been oppressed equally to blacks in America, and it's probably true that they haven't been.
In terms of the Victim Olympics, it's hard to beat centuries of chattel slavery. That said, it's not really correct to say that the Civil Rights movement predates the gay rights movement. They largely coincide, and it's not unreasonable to consider the gay rights movement under the larger umbrella of the Civil Rights movement, which includes equal protection for blacks and women's lib. The Stonewall riots broke out in 1969, and while that is commonly cited as the birth of the gay rights movement, it really isn't. Similar things had happened at other gay bars, and it's arguable that the first gay rights groups were the Mattachine society and Daughters of Belitis, who go back as far as 1950. We have this idea right now that gay rights are something that emerged after the civil rights era, but gay activists have always been right there in the thick of it.
I wasn't really talking about who was there first.
The Black Civil Rights movement shouldn't be invoked because even if you had a group that had suffered in America comparably to blacks - say, American Indians - the argument that "my blues are equally sad as your blues" is a bad one, and unnecessary and counter-productive.
And when you make the argument that your group has suffered equally to a group that has suffered x+10, you risk pissing them off because they may feel like you're trivializing what they went through. This is partially how you get a 70% Yes on 8 black vote in CA, with older blacks (the ones who went through the worst periods) being the stronger supporters.
The older blacks also happen to be more religious, which carries through to other demographics which may or may not have had german shepards biting their ass.
Civil marriage for gays is a civil right. Sure, you can come up with some marketing slogan that uses a different name because it might piss some people off but I'd rather worry about outreach at a level deeper than sloganeering. If your message isn't getting across because you're going door to door in a suit, there are deeper problems.
It doesn't help when the gay marriage movement cloaks itself in the imagery of the 1960s Civil Rights movement - especially among the older blacks who actually lived through the 60s. You're likely never going to convince blacks that gays have been oppressed equally to blacks in America, and it's probably true that they haven't been.
In terms of the Victim Olympics, it's hard to beat centuries of chattel slavery. That said, it's not really correct to say that the Civil Rights movement predates the gay rights movement. They largely coincide, and it's not unreasonable to consider the gay rights movement under the larger umbrella of the Civil Rights movement, which includes equal protection for blacks and women's lib. The Stonewall riots broke out in 1969, and while that is commonly cited as the birth of the gay rights movement, it really isn't. Similar things had happened at other gay bars, and it's arguable that the first gay rights groups were the Mattachine society and Daughters of Belitis, who go back as far as 1950. We have this idea right now that gay rights are something that emerged after the civil rights era, but gay activists have always been right there in the thick of it.
I wasn't really talking about who was there first.
The Black Civil Rights movement shouldn't be invoked because even if you had a group that had suffered in America comparably to blacks - say, American Indians - the argument that "my blues are equally sad as your blues" is a bad one, and unnecessary and counter-productive.
And when you make the argument that your group has suffered equally to a group that has suffered x+10, you risk pissing them off because they may feel like you're trivializing what they went through. This is partially how you get a 70% Yes on 8 black vote in CA, with older blacks (the ones who went through the worst periods) being the stronger supporters.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
Mormons, on a per-capita basis, were way, way more involved than Catholics. They donated way more money per capita, and the Mormon Church put itself forward as the champion of hating gay people way more than any of the other churches. The fact that they're easier to target because there aren't nearly as many Mormon churches as there are Catholic or other Protestant churches doesn't hurt, either.
No argument there. I think that's a completely valid point.
I just don't think the Catholics should be let off the hook, given that they invited the Mormons in to help, and then brought in more votes, period, not per capita, than any other religion in California.
The Catholics are just as bigoted, and had a lot more people to vote with. They're just more polite about it, and didn't raise as much money. I'm saying this as somebody who renounced his Catholic faith at least in part over this.
I don't think anyone is letting them off the hook. I know if you look at numbers, they didn't contribute nearly as much to the pro-8 campaign as Mormons, either monetarily or manpower-wise. Further, I'll bet you the support as a percentage for prop 8 among Catholics was substantially lower than the pro-8 support among Mormons. In fact, I'm guessing Mormon support was nigh-unanimous, whereas I'll bet there was a significant amount of dissent among Catholics.
Basically, I'm saying that by targeting Mormons, there's less collateral damage.
Part of me wonders if this was actually the intent of the Catholic Archbishop who contacted his friends in the LDS church. While he may have been Bishop of Salt Lake City, and may have had friendly relations with LDS leaders, the Catholic church and the LDS church do not get along. The Catholic church recognizes baptisms from non-Catholic churches, but refuses to acknowledge baptisms performed by LDS members/missionaries, for example.
Perhaps he thought it to be better if the Mormon's took the heat for propagating anti-gay discrimination, instead of the Catholic church this time.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
Gays have been hunted down and killed just for being homosexual. If that isn't considered a shared experience, I don't know what is.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited December 2008
Can I just say here that Massachusetts is awesome and pretty much all the rest of you suck?
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
Plus there are gay black people. So, that's like, doubly discriminated against, right?
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
Plus there are gay black people. So, that's like, doubly discriminated against, right?
Actually, I think a famous/prominent black American coming out would have a big impact on countering some of the anti-gay sentiment in the community. When you look at prominent gays, or the composition of this year's rallies, it does appear to be a very whites-driven issue. A prominent black at the forefront of the movement would drive home that this was an issue for the black community too, the way Magic Johnson's HIV announcement helped break the notion that it was a gay/drug user-only disease.
It wouldn't have to be someone on an Obama/Oprah/Tiger level, but it probably would have to be someone bigger than a Wanda Sykes.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
Except the gay kid has the option to "go into the closet", at which point they're no longer going to be directly persecuted. The black kid doesn't get that option.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
Except the gay kid has the option to "go into the closet", at which point they're no longer going to be directly persecuted. The black kid doesn't get that option.
Yeah, but the black kid never has to worry about telling someone or people finding out.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
Except the gay kid has the option to "go into the closet", at which point they're no longer going to be directly persecuted. The black kid doesn't get that option.
You act like going into the closet is some sort of good option, or is better then being black in 2008. I'd totally disagree.
Now to be black and gay? that sucks, your own race completely rejects you and there is quite a bit of animosity towards the black community in the gay community. They're not a big fan of the most homophobic demographic in the country.
geckahn on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Actually, I think a famous/prominent black American coming out would have a big impact on countering some of the anti-gay sentiment in the community. When you look at prominent gays, or the composition of this year's rallies, it does appear to be a very whites-driven issue. A prominent black at the forefront of the movement would drive home that this was an issue for the black community too, the way Magic Johnson's HIV announcement helped break the notion that it was a gay/drug user-only disease.
It wouldn't have to be someone on an Obama/Oprah/Tiger level, but it probably would have to be someone bigger than a Wanda Sykes.
I'm praying for an Alan Keyes or maybe a Clarence Thomas.
Irond Will on
0
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
Actually, I think a famous/prominent black American coming out would have a big impact on countering some of the anti-gay sentiment in the community. When you look at prominent gays, or the composition of this year's rallies, it does appear to be a very whites-driven issue. A prominent black at the forefront of the movement would drive home that this was an issue for the black community too, the way Magic Johnson's HIV announcement helped break the notion that it was a gay/drug user-only disease.
It wouldn't have to be someone on an Obama/Oprah/Tiger level, but it probably would have to be someone bigger than a Wanda Sykes.
I'm praying for an Alan Keyes or maybe a Clarence Thomas.
Neither enough lime nor justice for either of those to happen, unfortunately.
ResIpsaLoquitur on
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
Actually, I think a famous/prominent black American coming out would have a big impact on countering some of the anti-gay sentiment in the community. When you look at prominent gays, or the composition of this year's rallies, it does appear to be a very whites-driven issue. A prominent black at the forefront of the movement would drive home that this was an issue for the black community too, the way Magic Johnson's HIV announcement helped break the notion that it was a gay/drug user-only disease.
It wouldn't have to be someone on an Obama/Oprah/Tiger level, but it probably would have to be someone bigger than a Wanda Sykes.
I'm praying for an Alan Keyes or maybe a Clarence Thomas.
Neither enough lime nor justice for either of those to happen, unfortunately.
Except that even if both of them were gay, they'd never admit it.
Yesterday morning, one of my employees called in gay.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
pink thlip
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
Yesterday morning, one of my employees called in gay.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
pink thlip
You're jailed, this should have tipped you off that your "sense of humor" is anything but.
Yesterday morning, one of my employees called in gay.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
pink thlip
You're jailed, this should have tipped you off that your "sense of humor" is anything but.
Hey, the dude greatly inconvenienced our operations by deciding that "being gay" was a valid reason not to come in to work.
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
Everyone uses this argument when comparing race and sexuality. Yeah, sure, you can go into the closet. But you know what? Being in the closet fucking sucks. It was the worst experience of my life hands down, and I was only closeted for a couple of years in a liberal community. That shit erodes your soul, your happiness, and your capacity to be open with other people in the most basic way possible. You aren't just hiding sex, you're hiding a huge part of your being, you're living a lie, you present two different parts of your self to differing parts of the public. When I did come out at 17 I was consistently miserable and depressed at that point. Living a lie is a terrible, awful thing and I do not suggest anyone do it.
Yesterday morning, one of my employees called in gay.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
pink thlip
You're jailed, this should have tipped you off that your "sense of humor" is anything but.
Hey, the dude greatly inconvenienced our operations by deciding that "being gay" was a valid reason not to come in to work.
He probably didn't come because he knew you would have beat him to death if you knew he was gay. Just sayin'.
Yesterday morning, one of my employees called in gay.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
Yesterday morning, one of my employees called in gay.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
pink thlip
You really are an enormous asshole.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
Unless he was lacking in personal/sick days you're probably going to get saddled with a wrongful termination suit.
HE decided that his sexual orientation should give him something none of the rest of his coworkers and subordinates have, an excuse to skip work without leave or pre-clearance. What's retarded is that we HAVE paid time off.
All he had to do was schedule the time off so his work could be covered.
But NOOOOO. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted not only to miss work, but to leave us in the lurch, to purposefully damage productivity by making it hard to cover him–– by waiting until yesterday AM and "calling IN 'Gay'"
Fuck him.
Tostitos on
The internet gives me a native +2 bonus in Craft (Disturbing Mental Image).
Unless he was lacking in personal/sick days you're probably going to get saddled with a wrongful termination suit.
I don't say much in this forum, but an employee who does not report to work and does not provide an acceptable reason can be terminated on first offense if the company policy is clear that missed work is only allowed withiin certain guidelines.
That said, it sounds dickish to fire him, maybe a formal discipline would be a better solution, i dunno.
And if he were to have replaced 'gay' with 'undisclosed illness' would you have fired him? If not, then you're going to get sued. And if yes, I'd make sure your contract doesn't allow for discretionary sick days.
And if he were to have replaced 'gay' with 'undisclosed illness' would you have fired him? If not, then you're going to get sued. And if yes, I'd make sure your contract doesn't allow for discretionary sick days.
Contact? Is it a union job? Maybe it was mentioned earlier and I didn't see. I think Massachusettes is an at-will employment state like CA, and unless he's covered by a CBA, an employer could deem that calling out in protest of something constitutes a termable offense. Since the employee self-disclosed the reason for thier callout, sounds like it's safer from a suit.
Unless he was lacking in personal/sick days you're probably going to get saddled with a wrongful termination suit.
HE decided that his sexual orientation should give him something none of the rest of his coworkers and subordinates have, an excuse to skip work without leave or pre-clearance. What's retarded is that we HAVE paid time off.
All he had to do was schedule the time off so his work could be covered.
But NOOOOO. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted not only to miss work, but to leave us in the lurch, to purposefully damage productivity by making it hard to cover him–– by waiting until yesterday AM and "calling IN 'Gay'"
Fuck him.
Fuck you.
What does this have to do with this thread at all? There are lazy gay people around OH MY GOD SURPRISE
This is like going into a 'how can we stop racism' thread and saying an anecdote about how a black person was mean to you. This is a thread about homosexuals have been systematically denied rights based on - whatever, pick your reason. Your post was infantile and inflammatory. You know, you could have posted it so you didn't come across as a complete douchebag. like oh I don't know
This guy took off work without leave because he said he was gay. I don't think he deserved special treatment, and he violated the attendance policy, so I fired him.
nope! you just had to waltz in here and tell us all how much you hate fags. Thanks. Awesome. If there's something else I needed after this shitty day it was some mildly retarded asshole reminding me that mouth breathers like you exist.
Unless he was lacking in personal/sick days you're probably going to get saddled with a wrongful termination suit.
HE decided that his sexual orientation should give him something none of the rest of his coworkers and subordinates have, an excuse to skip work without leave or pre-clearance. What's retarded is that we HAVE paid time off.
All he had to do was schedule the time off so his work could be covered.
But NOOOOO. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted not only to miss work, but to leave us in the lurch, to purposefully damage productivity by making it hard to cover him–– by waiting until yesterday AM and "calling IN 'Gay'"
Fuck him.
Fuck you.
What does this have to do with this thread at all? There are lazy gay people around OH MY GOD SURPRISE.
And if he were to have replaced 'gay' with 'undisclosed illness' would you have fired him? If not, then you're going to get sued. And if yes, I'd make sure your contract doesn't allow for discretionary sick days.
In California, my understanding of the law (IANAL) is similar to mrdobalina's. A worker is in general allowed to take unscheduled time off for illnesses but does not have to disclose the nature of an illness (and in fact due to health privacy laws the employer cannot even ask what the illness was), however if the worker discloses that their absence was due to something other than illness then they open themselves up to disciplinary action if their reason was not valid.
At least, that's how it was explained to me many aeons ago when I was actually managing people.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
And if he were to have replaced 'gay' with 'undisclosed illness' would you have fired him? If not, then you're going to get sued. And if yes, I'd make sure your contract doesn't allow for discretionary sick days.
Contact? Is it a union job? Maybe it was mentioned earlier and I didn't see. I think Massachusettes is an at-will employment state like CA, and unless he's covered by a CBA, an employer could deem that calling out in protest of something constitutes a termable offense. Since the employee self-disclosed the reason for thier callout, sounds like it's safer from a suit.
Could, of course. Should is a bit more iffy.
Unless you're being paid under the table there is a contract to be employed. Even if it's just a sentence. On top of the proof of citizenship and tax stuff. Seeing how it sounds like Tostitos works for more than a 2 man joint, and that it isn't mob related I'm going to guess that it's probably more than a sentence.
Posts
No argument there. I think that's a completely valid point.
I just don't think the Catholics should be let off the hook, given that they invited the Mormons in to help, and then brought in more votes, period, not per capita, than any other religion in California.
The Catholics are just as bigoted, and had a lot more people to vote with. They're just more polite about it, and didn't raise as much money. I'm saying this as somebody who renounced his Catholic faith at least in part over this.
I read your blog post about that. That was an awesome thing you did, and I commend you for the strength of character required to do it.
Basically, I'm saying that by targeting Mormons, there's less collateral damage.
And again, I can agree with that. Call it my personal baggage for focusing on the Catholics (above and beyond the note that there were more Catholic Yes on 8 votes than Mormon Yes on 8 votes, by a long long ways -- and I wish there were some way to change that, the same way that people want to focus on the Mormons to stop the money from pouring in quite so readily next time).
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
I wasn't really talking about who was there first.
The Black Civil Rights movement shouldn't be invoked because even if you had a group that had suffered in America comparably to blacks - say, American Indians - the argument that "my blues are equally sad as your blues" is a bad one, and unnecessary and counter-productive.
And when you make the argument that your group has suffered equally to a group that has suffered x+10, you risk pissing them off because they may feel like you're trivializing what they went through. This is partially how you get a 70% Yes on 8 black vote in CA, with older blacks (the ones who went through the worst periods) being the stronger supporters.
Civil marriage for gays is a civil right. Sure, you can come up with some marketing slogan that uses a different name because it might piss some people off but I'd rather worry about outreach at a level deeper than sloganeering. If your message isn't getting across because you're going door to door in a suit, there are deeper problems.
True, but I mean...and I'm probably going to get chewed out for this (already did last night by my mom who is 100% Black while I'm only half) but you really can't compare pain can you? I don't think what gays mean when they say that they're fighting for rights just like Blacks did they mean that they went through the same exact events like slavery or being treated as animals, but that they're just fighting for something that everyone should basically have.
But to say that...I guess that they haven't suffered as much hurt (not suffered the same events, just the emotional side) seems a bit off. Unless you're just talking about events, then never mind.
Part of me wonders if this was actually the intent of the Catholic Archbishop who contacted his friends in the LDS church. While he may have been Bishop of Salt Lake City, and may have had friendly relations with LDS leaders, the Catholic church and the LDS church do not get along. The Catholic church recognizes baptisms from non-Catholic churches, but refuses to acknowledge baptisms performed by LDS members/missionaries, for example.
Perhaps he thought it to be better if the Mormon's took the heat for propagating anti-gay discrimination, instead of the Catholic church this time.
Gays have been hunted down and killed just for being homosexual. If that isn't considered a shared experience, I don't know what is.
Yet you somehow elected Mitt Romney to the Governor's mansion. I think this besmirches much of your awesome :P
The thing that helps the gays in the "we got treated worse" debate is the fact that slavery ended in the 1860s, and while lingering racism is a huge deal, I'm pretty sure any kid would rather be black than gay when they're growing up and being taunted daily.
Plus there are gay black people. So, that's like, doubly discriminated against, right?
Actually, I think a famous/prominent black American coming out would have a big impact on countering some of the anti-gay sentiment in the community. When you look at prominent gays, or the composition of this year's rallies, it does appear to be a very whites-driven issue. A prominent black at the forefront of the movement would drive home that this was an issue for the black community too, the way Magic Johnson's HIV announcement helped break the notion that it was a gay/drug user-only disease.
It wouldn't have to be someone on an Obama/Oprah/Tiger level, but it probably would have to be someone bigger than a Wanda Sykes.
Except the gay kid has the option to "go into the closet", at which point they're no longer going to be directly persecuted. The black kid doesn't get that option.
Yeah, but the black kid never has to worry about telling someone or people finding out.
There's just a lightly different set of problems.
You act like going into the closet is some sort of good option, or is better then being black in 2008. I'd totally disagree.
Now to be black and gay? that sucks, your own race completely rejects you and there is quite a bit of animosity towards the black community in the gay community. They're not a big fan of the most homophobic demographic in the country.
I'm praying for an Alan Keyes or maybe a Clarence Thomas.
Neither enough lime nor justice for either of those to happen, unfortunately.
Except that even if both of them were gay, they'd never admit it.
Today I told him to pack his shit and get out. I explained that in this tight economy, we all need to do our part, and if he was too busy being g... ga... a professional protester to do his I would hire someone else to do it.
You're jailed, this should have tipped you off that your "sense of humor" is anything but.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Hey, the dude greatly inconvenienced our operations by deciding that "being gay" was a valid reason not to come in to work.
He probably didn't come because he knew you would have beat him to death if you knew he was gay. Just sayin'.
Steam: pazython
You really are an enormous asshole.
professional protester? really?
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man
HE decided that his sexual orientation should give him something none of the rest of his coworkers and subordinates have, an excuse to skip work without leave or pre-clearance. What's retarded is that we HAVE paid time off.
All he had to do was schedule the time off so his work could be covered.
But NOOOOO. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted not only to miss work, but to leave us in the lurch, to purposefully damage productivity by making it hard to cover him–– by waiting until yesterday AM and "calling IN 'Gay'"
Fuck him.
I don't say much in this forum, but an employee who does not report to work and does not provide an acceptable reason can be terminated on first offense if the company policy is clear that missed work is only allowed withiin certain guidelines.
That said, it sounds dickish to fire him, maybe a formal discipline would be a better solution, i dunno.
Contact? Is it a union job? Maybe it was mentioned earlier and I didn't see. I think Massachusettes is an at-will employment state like CA, and unless he's covered by a CBA, an employer could deem that calling out in protest of something constitutes a termable offense. Since the employee self-disclosed the reason for thier callout, sounds like it's safer from a suit.
Could, of course. Should is a bit more iffy.
Fuck you.
What does this have to do with this thread at all? There are lazy gay people around OH MY GOD SURPRISE
This is like going into a 'how can we stop racism' thread and saying an anecdote about how a black person was mean to you. This is a thread about homosexuals have been systematically denied rights based on - whatever, pick your reason. Your post was infantile and inflammatory. You know, you could have posted it so you didn't come across as a complete douchebag. like oh I don't know
This guy took off work without leave because he said he was gay. I don't think he deserved special treatment, and he violated the attendance policy, so I fired him.
nope! you just had to waltz in here and tell us all how much you hate fags. Thanks. Awesome. If there's something else I needed after this shitty day it was some mildly retarded asshole reminding me that mouth breathers like you exist.
Not quite. "Call in gay" day, actually, an attempt at national show of support for gay marriage.
In California, my understanding of the law (IANAL) is similar to mrdobalina's. A worker is in general allowed to take unscheduled time off for illnesses but does not have to disclose the nature of an illness (and in fact due to health privacy laws the employer cannot even ask what the illness was), however if the worker discloses that their absence was due to something other than illness then they open themselves up to disciplinary action if their reason was not valid.
At least, that's how it was explained to me many aeons ago when I was actually managing people.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Unless you're being paid under the table there is a contract to be employed. Even if it's just a sentence. On top of the proof of citizenship and tax stuff. Seeing how it sounds like Tostitos works for more than a 2 man joint, and that it isn't mob related I'm going to guess that it's probably more than a sentence.