Parkinsons - Countries & Capitals...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why Should Being Gay Be A Sackable Offence In The Us?
This is a bit of a convoluted story, but the gist seems to be that the Department of Justice is really going for this:
http://
Why? Surely this doesn’t sit right with most people, no matter what their political persuasion.
Is there anyone on AB who thinks this is justified? Or reasonable? Or..,not mental?
http://
Why? Surely this doesn’t sit right with most people, no matter what their political persuasion.
Is there anyone on AB who thinks this is justified? Or reasonable? Or..,not mental?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
.// Is there anyone on AB who thinks this is justified?// er I wonder what AOG's opinion is
//Years ago I watched a TV documentary about military police. They hounded some sailor and he was thrown out of the Navy for being gay.// -yeah I think I saw the same one. The police required the rating's locker to be opened and searched as he had been spotted in a gay bar on Union St Plymouth - and a mag - 'one of those' was found. Turned in by another rating in the bar they said
He was required to resign and when he brought his case at Strasbourg ( oo-er - Mrs the Brexiters wont like that!) and was told that since he had resigned and not been fired they couldnt hear the case.
when the presenter challenged the MPs ( naval provost or whatever) that the man wasnt a criminal just said - "we are following the rules and orders"
It used to be lawful to fire people for being gay - the exception being saying 'I am gay' at interview.
and Trump is seeking to turn the clock back
The mother trucker case - am I the only to have a memory of more than a few days?'. A driver ( or er mother trucker) of a heavy lorry was also a cross dresser when not driving and was fired by the makers of a childrens sweet called 'twinkies' - and this was held to be lawful - the image of a mother trucker delivering twinkies to cute gap toothed kids was not compatible with cross-dressing off duty
American courts support american industry far beyond any inkling or conception we may have in the UK.
//Years ago I watched a TV documentary about military police. They hounded some sailor and he was thrown out of the Navy for being gay.// -yeah I think I saw the same one. The police required the rating's locker to be opened and searched as he had been spotted in a gay bar on Union St Plymouth - and a mag - 'one of those' was found. Turned in by another rating in the bar they said
He was required to resign and when he brought his case at Strasbourg ( oo-er - Mrs the Brexiters wont like that!) and was told that since he had resigned and not been fired they couldnt hear the case.
when the presenter challenged the MPs ( naval provost or whatever) that the man wasnt a criminal just said - "we are following the rules and orders"
It used to be lawful to fire people for being gay - the exception being saying 'I am gay' at interview.
and Trump is seeking to turn the clock back
The mother trucker case - am I the only to have a memory of more than a few days?'. A driver ( or er mother trucker) of a heavy lorry was also a cross dresser when not driving and was fired by the makers of a childrens sweet called 'twinkies' - and this was held to be lawful - the image of a mother trucker delivering twinkies to cute gap toothed kids was not compatible with cross-dressing off duty
American courts support american industry far beyond any inkling or conception we may have in the UK.
Togo / ludwig
No - it’s not that at all.
This is what can happen if gay people are excluded from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act...
If a chap is asked by HR, “Who is your next of kin contact for our records”, and he answers “My husband”, he can be dismissed. He cannot claim discrimination based on sexual orientation.
That’s what this means.
Please don’t fall for the guff about gay people shouting it from the rooftops. It would be like every straight man having to keep the fact that he’s married to a woman or dating a woman secret.
That’s exactly what this is about.
Try going a month at work without using the appropriate pronoun for your partner. If you can’t then technically does that means you’re being ‘voluble’?
No - it’s not that at all.
This is what can happen if gay people are excluded from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act...
If a chap is asked by HR, “Who is your next of kin contact for our records”, and he answers “My husband”, he can be dismissed. He cannot claim discrimination based on sexual orientation.
That’s what this means.
Please don’t fall for the guff about gay people shouting it from the rooftops. It would be like every straight man having to keep the fact that he’s married to a woman or dating a woman secret.
That’s exactly what this is about.
Try going a month at work without using the appropriate pronoun for your partner. If you can’t then technically does that means you’re being ‘voluble’?
If this was the best test case the gay mafia could find, the chance of a gay man getting the sack for actually being gay in America must be zero.
Am I the only other person who listened to Talbot's recording?
A covert recording taken by the gay man to entrap his employer. (No doubt on the advice of his or the gay Mafia's legal team)
Didn't work.
Suspend belief for a moment and consider the crazy notion that straight people could be on the side of right for once and not every gay person is a paragon of virtue 100% of the time.
Am I the only other person who listened to Talbot's recording?
A covert recording taken by the gay man to entrap his employer. (No doubt on the advice of his or the gay Mafia's legal team)
Didn't work.
Suspend belief for a moment and consider the crazy notion that straight people could be on the side of right for once and not every gay person is a paragon of virtue 100% of the time.
Mamyalynne
I’ve attempted to explain that before. I appreciate that you get it. This is an attempt to redefine the Civil Rights Bill.
That’s the crux of the DoJ argument. It’s not about the Varda case (which is effectively done seeing as he’s dead), but how gay people will be treated in terms of employment discrimination going forward.
I’m heartened that there are people like you who get it.
I’ve attempted to explain that before. I appreciate that you get it. This is an attempt to redefine the Civil Rights Bill.
That’s the crux of the DoJ argument. It’s not about the Varda case (which is effectively done seeing as he’s dead), but how gay people will be treated in terms of employment discrimination going forward.
I’m heartened that there are people like you who get it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.