Yes on 1, Argument

343 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike G
Offline
Last seen: 42 min 52 sec ago
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

I haven't been keeping up on the fag threads, I find them beneath me, haha.

So if you don't want to be concerned about bending over in the shower to pick up a bar of soap, do you vote yes or no on 1?

I know the answer already, stay out of prison.

Robert
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 6 months ago
Joined: 04/01/2005 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Charlotte, that Varney case proves nothing. We have only one side of the story. Research what an at will employee is. It is an employee who can be fired for any reason at any time with no explanation. It happens every day. There is more to your example then meets the eye. Sadly, Varney is restricted by law on what is public information.

I served time as chairman, vice chairman and shop steward for a very large union. Ten years in those positions. While defending one guy in a pre termination hearing for theft, (they had him red handed) He told me he was going to claim he was gay and that was the reason this employee was trying to terminate him.

Enough said. Personal accountability goes a long way.

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Mike...how charming...

Robert...If you had 50 proven cases would you vote No on 1?

MarkSeger
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 09/30/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

MM

democrat
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 8 months ago
Joined: 11/15/2003 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Charlotte, your muslim man example is a good one. I assume that you agree that a company should be able to establish a dress code. A muslim who will not accept that dress code should not be hired in the first place. If I refused to hire one because of that, could I be sued for discrimination? What if it were a woman in a burka applying for a receptionist job? That would really help business. In the name of protecting people we are discriminating against employers who have legitimate business reasons for hiring or not hiring employees. It shouldn't matter if a potential employee is gay, but if that employee puts off other employees or customers by displaying his/her homosexuality the new law would put them in a protected class, more protected than heterosexual employees. It's like the state giving cohabitation benefits to gay couples but not heterosexual couples. This is tough. I really like my gay friends and this means a lot to them because it signals that a majority of Maine people accept them. Well, at least I have some time to make up my mind.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="democrat"]Charlotte, your muslim man example is a good one. I assume that you agree that a company should be able to establish a dress code. A muslim who will not accept that dress code should not be hired in the first place. If I refused to hire one because of that, could I be sued for discrimination? What if it were a woman in a burka applying for a receptionist job? That would really help business. In the name of protecting people we are discriminating against employers who have legitimate business reasons for hiring or not hiring employees. It shouldn't matter if a potential employee is gay, but if that employee puts off other employees or customers by displaying his/her homosexuality the new law would put them in a protected class, more protected than heterosexual employees. It's like the state giving cohabitation benefits to gay couples but not heterosexual couples. This is tough. I really like my gay friends and this means a lot to them because it signals that a majority of Maine people accept them. Well, at least I have some time to make up my mind.[/quote]

You sound like more of a libertarian to me. Care to come over to the other side? :)

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Dem...Inappropriate behavior can be expected in the work place...that goes for gay/straight...any religion.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

True Charlotte... inappropriate behavior can happen to ANYONE! And I think it happened to Mr. Nadeau. I wouldn't kiss my HUSBAND in the parking lot at work. You don't show affection while you're on company property whether your on company time or not. My husband has tried to kiss me in his office a couple of times and if I allow him to :) I always look around first. Maybe it's because I'm of English (mostly) and Irish and he's of French Canadian heritage. :lol:

Anyway... do you want to make gay expression of love protected over everyone else's? I don't think it's professional to do that and I would hedge a bet that he was fired for unprofessional behavior. They may have fired a girl for kissing her boyfriend in the parking lot if perhaps rather than it being Mr. Nadeau it was Ms. Nadeau. Of course, if it were Ms. Nadeau, it wouldn't be news, would it?

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

He gave his partner a peck on the cheek...and I am sure plenty of straight couples have done that...I have given my friends quick pecks goodbye in a gentle fashion. It was not like he was in a lip lock...

So no, I don't think he should have been fired for that.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="charlotte"]He gave his partner a peck on the cheek...and I am sure plenty of straight couples have done that...I have given my friends quick pecks goodbye in a gentle fashion. It was not like he was in a lip lock...

So no, I don't think he should have been fired for that.[/quote]

Where did it read peck on the cheek? And you can't just assume it was a problem because he is GAY! Why does this have to be a gay issue? Men can peck on the cheek and not be gay... so why would he make the assumption he is gay?

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

I heard him in person. He said they went out to lunch and when his partner dropped him off he gave him a peck on the cheek. He had a strong performance record...and was training others at the time. They never gave him a chance to hear what the problem was....they just let him go. Fired him the same day....clear discrimination.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="charlotte"]I heard him in person. He said they went out to lunch and when his partner dropped him off he gave him a peck on the cheek. He had a strong performance record...and was training others at the time. They never gave him a chance to hear what the problem was....they just let him go. Fired him the same day....clear discrimination.[/quote]

Ok... why do you automatically take everything he says for gospel?

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

He stated it in front of camera, and many people...he was very shy and anxious. I wish we had a law so he could bring the group to civil court...that would help.

Catherine...I don't believe everyone's stories...I do believe him.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

It's easy to believe someone when you want to!!!

If he was shy, anxious, and scared, why did he kiss his boyfriend in public? That is provocative behavior. Whether you like it or not, that's reality. It's also unprofessional behavior, as much as it is unprofessional to kiss your opposite sex lover in public, at work! If it was as fast and discreet as he said it was, chances are it wouldn't have been a big issue. I am thinking there was more to the story than he was letting on.

You can't tell me there is no chance at all that it was more than a quick peck on the cheek that got him canned.

This just doesn't rise to the level of a problem that demands legislation. Even 50 documented cases aren't enough to warrant a law in a state with a million people.

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Catherine...couples even friends give quick pecks on the cheek without it being a scandal...give me a break.

This guys was fired for being gay.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Why don't you give me a break!!!!

Why do you assume it was because he is gay? If it was no big deal....

Why assume he was fired for the kiss if it was no big deal? Maybe the person who gave him his report really liked him but there were problems with other people in the office who had issues with his work performance!

You can't just assume it was because he is gay because of circumstantial evidence.

That is my problem with this law! There is this circumstantial evidence and this person's side of the story and boom, Varney can be sued and put out of business.

Yeah, that's gonna be GREAT for the economy. You know what's going to happen? People are going to be afraid to hire gay people in the first place for fear of being sued in case they don't work out for other reasons. :roll:

I can't believe you can't see past your own agenda.

eagleisland
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="charlotte"]Dem...Inappropriate behavior can be expected in the work place...that goes for gay/straight...any religion.[/quote]

Gotta hand it to you on this point at least, Charlotte - you're tenacious.

You're quite correct that inapproprate behavior can be expected in the work place... gay or straight.

And the person who owns the business and/or his/her appointed designees have every right to determine whether or not an employee's behavior is in the best interest of the company.

This guy was a RECEPTIONIST (I love the self-titled description of the job he did... "in the area of reception and public service"... yikes). I can tell you that if the receptionist in any company I ever worked for - including the one I now run - was trading spit in public with a lover, there'd be hell to pay. Why? Because it's inappropriate. And as a receptionist, this person was in a person to create the FIRST IMPRESSION people had of the company.

Missing from the claim you're so convinced proves there's a problem...? Any past history of previous disciplinary concerns. You can't limit it to the fact that this clown had a good performance review. First of all, if you had a clue about organizational dynamics you'd know that a weak subordinate reflects negatively on the subordinate's supervisor - and unfortunately, lower-level managers tend to be weak in this regard (and not many receptionists report to a senior manager). Second, supervisors tend to overlook weaknesses in their direct reports, particularly if they personally like them as people. Most importantly, in today's litigious climate, significant criticism rarely makes into an employee's HR jacket until a company is convinced it has a problem and starts cataloguing problems so they have a defensible case if they have to pull the trigger.

Charlotte, your heart is clearly in the right place. Here's hoping that one day - one day very soon - your brain will catch up.

Cuz
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 05/08/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Don't want to repeat myself from an earlier post in a different thread, so I'll reword it slightly

Has anyone here:

1) ever seen a rental agreement that asks if you are gay or anything else about your sexual preferences?
2) ever filled in a loan or credit application that asked you about your sexual preferences?
3) ever done a job interview, or have to check a box on a job application asking about your sexual preferences?
- the only one's who have asked this to my knowledge are the Boy Scouts, and I wholly support their right to ask,
I think they will also ask you if you "prefer" children...

The law as is supports a pattern of behavior. [b]Not [/b]supporting behavior you do not approve of, is not discrimination.

I have friends who are gay. They are still friends. I do not support or condone this aspect of their behavior any more than I support hetros who constantly "encourage" the ladies just to get them into bed. Supporting bad behavior publically does not make for a good law.

I too, have a home made "Yes on 1" bumper sticker taped to the inside back window...

Thanks for your time.
Cuz

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Thank you eagleisland. Well said.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="Cuz"]
I too, have a home made "Yes on 1" bumper sticker taped to the inside back window...

Thanks for your time.
Cuz[/quote]

If I see you on the road I'll wave. :)

eagleisland
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

[quote="Catherine8679"]Thank you eagleisland. Well said.[/quote]

You're welcome.

As previously noted, I've actually voted in FAVOR of gay rights referendums in this state. But I've got a big problem with legislative end-runs and trumped-up claims of problems where none exist (as I've subsequently learned)

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

I take new laws very seriously, especially when it comes to anything that can negatively impact maine's attractiveness to companies who create jobs. The more employers are going to have to worry about, the less attractive Maine will be and the more companies (jobs) will leave for the red states!

This measure is 100% feel good and I don't feel very good about it as a practical matter because I don't think it's warranted.

Calvin
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

I suspect that being gay does not in itself bring discrimination, rather it is their behavior and that "in your face attitude."

D

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

To be honest, in-your-face gay people don't bother me in the least. It's in-your-face lawyers that I don't care for.

Calvin
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

thank you Catherine but I've already been in that scene. :evil:

Beth O'Connor
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 04/28/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Jesum Crow...I hug and kiss people all the time...Men, women, kids...the dog even gets a kiss and a hug in public....I kiss and hug as much as humanly possible and nobody has ever said boo, I do however start with a hand shake!!!

Maybe, just maybe, when people get let go for something that would seem so insignificant as a hug or kiss between consenting adults there is an underlying reason that is significant.

Larry
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/31/1999 - 1:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

When he was an assistant AG in charge of the hate-crimes unit in the early 1990s, Wessler solicited anonymous complaints of anti-gay name-calling and grafitti from gay bar owners. Wessler then reported these unverified, unsubstantiated, non-criminal acts to the public in the same statistical category as violent crimes. His purpose was clear: to create the false impression that Maine is a hot-bed of anti-gay prejudice and violence.

Wessler has said he believes it is an "abomination" that Maine doesn't have a "sexual orientation" amendment to the Maine Human Rights Act.

For the Bangor Daily to place the story of Wessler's report on Page 1, above the fold, with a big photo, is really shoddy journalism. It hardly merited placement on Page 3, given that the alleged incidents are anonymous.

Incidentally, Mike Heath defended Wessler as a man of integrity when Wessler was roundly criticized for manufacturing bogus anti-gay hate-crime stats in the mid-1990s.

bryce
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 1 week ago
Joined: 06/10/2003 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

"Wessler has said he believes it is an "abomination" that Maine doesn't have a "sexual orientation" amendment to the Maine Human Rights Act. "

Thank you, Larry, for bringing that up - I thought Wessler's name sounded familiar, and now remember he was Angus's "Uberenforcer" of hate crimes. This is hardly an unbiased report.

bryce
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 1 week ago
Joined: 06/10/2003 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Double post, sorry.

charlotte
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/09/2005 - 12:01am
Yes on 1, Argument

Catherine..he had great manager evaluations. He was given training duties just the week prior...He was not given any warnings (as is typical company policy prior to firing) to correct whatever problems his manager witnessed. He was fired the same day he gave his partner a peck on the cheek through a car window.

My brain is right on track Eagle...thanks. Why? Well there are plenty of people who hug or give quick pecks in public...very different than "muckin it up" in public. My brain says...since he had great reviews, and was given no warning (I could picture the warning..."the ee says he will not give a quick show of affection in the parking lot"...or better yet...no one at this office should show any sign of affection")_...If you don't see how that is clear discrimination...oh well.

Beth...well said.

Pages

Log in to post comments