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.
Charlotte, you are making HUGE assumptions here. You are assuming that an unverified claim contained in a report released by an organization with a clear agenda is completely true, and therefore justifies a state law. You are also assuming that there were no other issues with this guy's performance. And you don't know that.
So as long as big assumptions are the order of the day, let's assume for a moment that the incident this individual claims was solely responsible for his termination is exactly as he claims. Question one or no question one, if this chap could show that his behavior was no different than that displayed by other employees at the company and prove, through company records and witness statements, that his performance was indeed as angelic as you want to believe it was, then he'd likely have a pretty good case for a wrongful termination lawsuit. In that this would be a civil rather than a criminal case, odds are pretty good that he'd succeed, too.
You have said NOTHING in this entire thread that convinces me (or, I presume, most of the other participants in this thread) that the law is anything more than a solution looking for a problem.
Still hope your brain catches up with your heart, dearie.
Eagle...then why didn't they follow company policy and put this man on review? Why, the same day his boss witness the "peck" on the cheek ...was he let go? Why didn't they let this man know the reason he was fired?
My brain..is just fine...thanks...
1. the same day they saw him give his partner a peck on the cheek? Coincidence?
2. No review, no chance to change his work...after going months with positive reviews? Coincidence?
3. Why would the company admit they fired him for being gay, they don't have to...it is legal in the state.
4. why not have this law so that this man can prove his case...
What it gets down to, the root...Is do you think...if every aspect of this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt....that the employer still had the right to fire this employee for his actions.
You can't assume that because he was training someone there were no problems on his job. Maybe they had him training his replacement! As far as a review goes, lots of people can perform their basic job functions, but can't play well with others. I'm not saying that this is the case for sure, but it's just as likely that they had a good reason to can him than not. I have interviewed people who had GLOWING letters of recommendation but then when I made follow-up calls I was told that they had fine performance but that they had a bad attitude, or their attendance was terrible, etc. It's sad, but true. A lot of people have a hard time writing poor reviews and just ignore bad attitudes in order to be a "nice guy" but then the other employees all start complaining to HR. I deal with people looking for work every day and a big part of my job is reference checking and following up on letters of recommendation in order to verify their validity.
I just don't see how you can automatically jump to conclusions.
Look, I understand, Charlotte. When you WANT to believe something really bad you will. It's easy to take every word he says for gospel when it agrees with your agenda.
[quote="Catherine8679"] I have interviewed people who had GLOWING letters of recommendation.[/quote]
A friend in the HR business once told me, never hire the person with the best recommendation. It usually means his employer would like to see him gone. ;)
An employee was seeking another job and asked his employer for a recommendation. The employer was willing that he leave but also wanted to be truthful in his recommendation since this employee was lazy and didn't get his work done.
Here is his response.
[color=red] YOU WILL BE LUCKY IF YOU CAN GET THIS GUY TO WORK FOR YOU.[/color]
[quote="charlotte"]Brad Nadeau's Story..."I took on the task to train a new employee who was hired a week or two after I was."[/quote]
...looks like his replacement was already in the works, whatever happened to this case? If I knew I was terminated unjustly I would certainly challenge the decision for no other reason than to defend my work record.
Make us "special class" victims and watch employers think twice before hiring a person they perceive to be homosexual. This is just one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of this need to embrace "minority" classification. The employer is now forced to acknowledge the state's sanctioning of this applicant's being branded "different" before assessing their skills and abilities. Work is about competency, employers rarely concern themselves with an employee's private life.
[quote="D.J. Babin"][quote="charlotte"]Brad Nadeau's Story..."I took on the task to train a new employee who was hired a week or two after I was."[/quote]
Make us "special class" victims and watch employers think twice before hiring a person they perceive to be homosexual. This is just one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of this need to embrace "minority" classification. The employer is now forced to acknowledge the state's sanctioning of this applicant's being branded "different" before assessing their skills and abilities. Work is about competency, employers rarely concern themselves with an employee's private life.[/quote]
Touche', DJ! And herein lies the rub. Just as the extremely well-itentioned ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) has created a preposterous windfall for trial attorneys itchin' to get their hands on settlement money - and a not insignificant number of professional 'victims' - so will this piece of legislation make it just one notch harder to run a business in the state of Maine.
Existing laws already protect EVERYONE. Special protection invites abuse.
Oh, and Charlotte - seeing as how you tend to believe everything you read, why not pick yourself up a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It's complete horse$|-|!+., of course, but it would be amusing to see you turn into a rabid anti-semite for a while... until we gave you something else to read.
Catherine..no poor reviews, company policy is to give warnings..none given. What I know is that this man was discriminated against...
Eagle...without this law, gays can be discriminated against.
[quote="charlotte"]Catherine..no poor reviews, company policy is to give warnings..none given. What I know is that this man was discriminated against...
Eagle...without this law, gays can be discriminated against.[/quote]
Charlotte, for the last time, I will point out that you are basing your statements on a heavily biased report and no real knowledge of either what actually happened or of the realities of the workplace...
Someday, you will almost certainly hear the pop.
What is the pop, you ask?
It is the nearly explosive sound you will hear the moment your head finally comes out of your @$$.
I don't know, Eagle. It's in there pretty solid.
I will ask you...if these were all filed with the state (again only can happen if we have a law...did you hear that popping sound from your bum?)....would you support the law then? I wonder....
If every one of the cases Wessler cites could be proven to be the result of anti-gay bias (a highly dubious proposition), that would not be sufficient grounds for making "sexual orientation" a protected minority class.
Minorities seeking protected class status must show that as an entire, averaged class thay have been economically disadvantaged. That is the history of civil-rights legislation and litigation. No rational legislative body or court would ever grant protected class status to homosexuals, because as an entire class they have never been able to show that they qualify as an oppressed minority. On the contrary, they enjoy significantly above-average incomes and education, and they wield enormous political clout. Granting them protected minority status would turn civil-rights law on its head.
Minority status under the human-rights statutes is reserved for the needy, not the greedy.
If it is for the needy...than this law should pass. Vote No on 1.
Vote Yes on 1.
Yes, because we already have anti-discrimination laws on the books (previous to the current edition shoved upon us by Gov. Baldacci) which afford protection to all citizens REGARDLESS of their sexual orientation.
All citizens unless they are discriminated because of the sexual identity.
Queers MUST meet three criteria to be given minority status. That is the standard of the law. These three criteria are
They MUST be easily recognizable as a group. I don't know about you, but I cannot easily recognize the vast majority of queers. The flamers are obvious, but in the minority (or so the pro homos tell us).
They MUST be economically disadvantaged. All Mainers are economically disadvantaged due to the Democratic thieves who run this state. Queers aren't singled out.
They MUST be politically powerless. The simple fact that the Legislature, over the objections of the people of Maine, passed a law granting queers special rights certainly disproves that statement.
AS I have said so many times before, your right to choose to accept, promote, condone or even particpate in homosexual behavior is no less than my right, as an American living in a supposed free society, to choose NOT TO.
Joe....your attitude is exactly why we need this law.
I will ask you...if these were all filed with the state (again only can happen if we have a law...did you hear that popping sound from your bum?)....would you support the law then? I wonder....[/quote]
Charlotte, if there was CLEAR, OBJECTIVE evidence of SYSTEMIC discrimination in the state, then I MIGHT support the law. Be very clear here: unlike some AMGers, I have no fundamental problem with homosexuality. I have no basic philosophical problem with the concept of gay marriage, for that matter.
I do, however, have a HUGE problem with a legislature that flies in the face of voter intent (which is VERY clear in this case) in the absence of any verifiable evidence of a problem. And I have an even bigger problem with those who cite unverified and unobjective 'sources' as evidence of a problem.
Let's examine that a bit deeper. Do you really think it possible that, given the nature of the Maine and New England media, that if there truly was a widespread and systemic issue with discrimination in the state, there wouldn't be regular news stories of gays being treated poorly? Trust me: it'd be all over the news.
But in the absence of real evidence of a problem? Sorry, can't support the law. It will create more problems than it solves.
Eagal my stance has always been...that most Mainers are not discriminating...but some do. Just like any issue.
We have voted on issues before...nothing new here.
Like I have pointed out....only 30 murders happen in the state yearly...however we have a law against murder. Laws are deterants.
How would you collect data? Without a law, how do we organize data that would suit you? Now... yes, or no question...if these cases fit your criteria as proven cases...would you support the law?
[quote="charlotte"]Eagal my stance has always been...that most Mainers are not discriminating...but some do. Just like any issue.
How would you collect data? Without a law, how do we organize data that would suit you? Now... yes, or no question...if these cases fit your criteria as proven cases...would you support the law?[/quote]
RTFP and you'll see I already answered your question.
"without a law, how do organize data that would suit you...?" Please. Should we pass a law saying that gentlemen shouldn't prefer blondes, because we need data to support the premise that they do?
[quote="charlotte"]How would you collect data? Without a law, how do we organize data that would suit you? Now... yes, or no question...if these cases fit your criteria as proven cases...would you support the law?[/quote]
There was plenty of data available before we passed laws dealing with race and gender.
Charlotte -- I assume you know a fair number of gay people in Maine. Based on your observations, are they, on average, worse off than straight people you know in Maine? Do they have a harder time finding jobs or housing than straight people you know?
I'm not asking if they have experienced discrimination. I am asking if gay people are generally worse off because of widespread discrimination.
[quote="charlotte"]Joe....your attitude is exactly why we need this law.[/quote]
Legislation based on attitude?
Eagle...you might support the law if all the cases were documented the "Eagle" way...lmao.
Dan...good question. I do think some gay and lesbians Mainers are worse off...esp. in rural areas.
My question to you is...do you think Christians are worse off...?
"Some are worse off." I guess that means that the real answer to my question is No.
Religion was included in our civil rights laws because there was well documented examples of discrimination against members of minority religions like those who are Jewish. There have been recently claims of discrimination against Muslims. There is also a history of discrimination against Catholics, though I do not think that is much of a problem today.
Dan there is documentation of gays have problems getting a job, accomodations...and the like.
You have heard plenty of people on this site say it is their right not to allow gays in their business...
What more do you need.
What I need is evidence that discrimination is so widespread that gays, on average, are worse off as a group. A few examples of discrimination do not justify a law. If one business will not hire someone because they are gay but there are plenty of other places that will, we don't need a law.
In the case of blacks and women, we had all sorts of evidence that blacks and women were never hired by certain businesses and could not get certain types of jobs. Blacks were often forced to live in certain neighborhoods.
It doesn't seem to me that gays face discrimination to that extent.
[quote="charlotte"]Dan there is documentation of gays have problems getting a job, accomodations...and the like.
[b]What more do you need?[/b].[/quote]
What we need is evidence that as an entire averaged class, homosexuals are economically disadvantaged and politically powerless. It's not enough to say some people don't like gays. It's not enough to cite anecdotal evidence of homosexuals having problems with employers or landlords. The burden is on you to prove that as a class homosexuals are oppressed and disadvantaged. You have failed to carry that burden. Case dismissed.
Incidentally, most landlords I've talked to would prefer to have gay and lesbian tenants. They generally pay the rent on time and don't trash the place.
[quote="charlotte"]Dan there is documentation of gays have problems getting a job, accomodations...and the like.
Charlotte, you keep claiming that. Links, please. Show us the goods. Show us objective reports, in which the information presented includes both the claims of the allegedly aggrieved and an objective look at the circumstances under which the alleged discrimination occured.
Hell, for that matter, just provide a link to that recent report you're basing your whole argument on.
Now, here's something real-world for you to consider. Years ago, I rented a spare room in my house to a fellow. Turned out he was gay, which I didn't realize until the night he had a friend stay over.
Now, lest you wonder, I personally couldn't have cared less. But suppose that my values were different than that. Suppose my upbringing was such that I believed his actions were morally wrong - or, at the least, that they made me extremely uncomfortable. Now, you could argue that were this the case I could simply say 'don't bring any more of your friends in here for sleepovers.' But could I say that if I had women come over for the night? Of course not - it would have been discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Asking him to move out would also have been a clear case of discrimination. Asking him NOT to move out would mean that I could not comfortably live in my own home.
At least give me SOME indication that you're bright enough to see the inherent problem here.
Eagle...50 cases from the Center..
why not read them...it won't hurt...lmao.
[quote="charlotte"]Eagle...50 cases from the Center..
why not read them...it won't hurt...lmao.[/quote]
Why not provide the link to same that I asked for?