The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Fired for Being Gay
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The results of this YouGov poll are a head scratcher. The percentages who think an employer should be able to terminate an employee for being gay follow. “Not sure” responses, constituting 16% of the total, are excluded:

Differences by age cohort are the most flummoxing. Given both the significant shift in attitudes towards homosexuality that has occurred over the last generation and the increasing classroom emphasis on intersectionality, the relatively high support for potential firing among younger people is highly surprising.

At least libertarians should be encouraged. In another century, Shinra will be able to fire Mukki and his merry molesters without hesitation.

This is another instance of how woke whites are trying to pull the rest of a reluctant Democrat coalition along with them. We can deduce the percentage of white Democrats who favor an employer having the right to fire a gay employee to be in the low single digits.

I break ranks and stand with woke whites on this one. Additionally, we should have protections in place for a person’s political orientation. Political beliefs are significantly genetic in origin. It’s hardly any fairer to fire a person for being a conservative than it is to fire him for being black.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Policy 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thomm says:

    As I said yesterday, a lot of these YouGov polls are garbage.

    14% say someone should be fired for being gay, but 36% say that refusal to use non-biological pronouns is grounds for firing?

    Both seem incorrect.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @gate666
  2. anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:

    Anti White is the truth behind “Anti Racist”

    Black Nations! Asian Nations! White “Diversity”?

    White ‘Privilege’: Open borders, “diversity” “multiculturalism”
    Non White ‘Privilege’: Nations, borders, homogeneity, racial self preference and preservation

    No White person is allowed to escape “diversity”. Diversity means Chasing Down White Flight.

    It’s Anti White. It’s Genocide.

  3. Anonymous[189] • Disclaimer says:

    Homosexual men are no longer the protected spices of the left they once were, in fact homosexuality now seems to be quite strongly associated with wealthy privileged white men.

    I suspect the reason that older generations are more pro-homosexual is because in their day the rights of gay men was the “in” cause, whereas now the narrative has moved to transgenderism, countless gender identities, etc, that the plain old gay white man seems very boring and very privileged.

    • Replies: @anon
  4. Rosie says:

    I break ranks and stand with woke whites on this one. Additionally, we should have protections in place for a person’s political orientation. Political beliefs are significantly genetic in origin. It’s hardly any fairer to fire a person for being a conservative than it is to fire him for being black.

    Agreed, except that some sort of don’t ask, don’t tell policy would seem like a fair compromise for religious organizations when freedom of conscience is at stake.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  5. I’m going to stand against the “woke”.  “Can’t fire for being gay”, as we have seen, ultimately comes down to having the privilege to make every day a Pride Parade at work and have other employees hauled in front of HR for daring to say “it’s okay to be cishet”.  And “bake the cake, bigot!”

    Nope.  People who bring their sexual deviancy to work are trouble, and employers should have the absolute right to treat them as trouble.  AND refuse them any services related to their deviancy.  Such as decorating cakes.

  6. Rosie says:

    There is so e truth in what you say. If someone makes an issue of their sexuality at work, then they are sort of setting up their employer for legal problems.

    Is it okay to be an open Christian? What if a Christian is known to attend a conservative church where homosexuality is considered a sin? Would promoting such a person to a leadership position be dangerous for an employer?

    Still, I think these interests can be balanced with fair outcomes for everyone, if all are acting in good faith with sincere regard for everyone’s point of view. The question is whether that is realistic.

  7. 216 says: • Website

    GOP controlled state legislatures should make “political ideology” a protected class, as the price of adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”.

    Further, Big Tech should be regulated as common carriers.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Marty T
  8. @Mr. Rational

    Hoosexuals, particularly male homosexuals, are public health, and often private health, catastrophes. An employer would be well within his rights not to want such a person in a workplace.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  9. Of course Epigone it’s better if you have people who naturally don’t get along, to force them in cubicles together instead of letting them segregate themselves. I didn’t realize you were in principle as pro burning the building down as I was.

    Lets also force them to share a single twitter account and leave lots of sharp rusty instruments laying around.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  10. @Mr. Rational

    The whole question lacks common sense.

    Over the years I have worked with many people and never concerned myself with what they did in their private lives. I had no need to know.

    Occasionally a co-worker would tell me they were gay. I didn’t know before, didn’t need to know now. Why would they even tell me?

    Are they waiting for a reaction? Do they want approval? Disapproval?

    (I would offer neither.)

    None of this stuff makes sense–just part of the totally insane world that we have today.

  11. Of course, the poll, like many polls, asks the wrong question. The question is whether a sodomite should be fired. “Gay” is a word that was stolen from the English language and corrupted, just as the word “Semite” has been. These words become weaponized to promote a political agenda.

    Call me whatever you want, but old laws against “un-natural acts” were there to protect us from that political agenda. Homosexuality exists, but there is nothing natural about it, any more than there is cancer.

  12. notanon says:

    Given both the significant shift in attitudes towards homosexuality that has occurred over the last generation and the increasing classroom emphasis on intersectionality, the relatively high support for potential firing among younger people is highly surprising.

    partly a reflection of ethnic percentages among different age groups maybe (and maybe partly a reaction to the increasing propaganda in schools i.e. population moving from center to two extremes)

    I break ranks and stand with woke whites on this one.

    some of the people may be thinking of particular exceptions e.g. in the military

  13. notanon says:
    @Thomm

    as the woke get more extreme they provoke an extreme reaction so the center ground shrinks and both extremes grow.

  14. J1234 says:

    Differences by age cohort are the most flummoxing. Given both the significant shift in attitudes towards homosexuality that has occurred over the last generation and the increasing classroom emphasis on intersectionality, the relatively high support for potential firing among younger people is highly surprising.

    I agree, that is surprising. It’s speculation on my part, but I’m guessing that there’s probably a rising libertarian streak among many different demographic and political perspectives, and it may be driven (and defined contextually) by who’s perceived to be in power. One of the Left’s (many) problems is that they believe their own shit so much that they often don’t seem to be aware when their own belligerent tactics have backfired on them.

    Case in point would be gay wedding cakes. The political right was the pretty clear moral (and, to a lesser degree, legal) victor in that battle, but that hasn’t seemed to dawn on the geniuses of the far left yet. (I use the term “moral victor” in a free speech context.)To them, gay couples will always be the victims, because…well…that’s the way religious thinking works. Also, of course, their allies in the MSM are constantly reinforcing the left’s world views by presenting them as the penultimate reality, shielding the left from legitimate opposing viewpoints…and the extent to which those viewpoints are held (and by whom.)

    • Replies: @SFG
  15. How about the right for an employer to not hear about, much less care about whether or not an employee is gay? Don’t ask, don’t tell was not such a bad idea, and it worked when private lives were indeed kept private.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  16. Would holding a “white workers” parade be grounds for dismissal?? We all know the answer.

  17. SFG says:
    @J1234

    Small nitpick: I think you mean ‘ultimate reality’. The ‘penultimate reality’ implies there’s another one past it, which I think only really makes sense in video games. 😉

    But overall, yes! I think libertarianism may make a comeback as people don’t trust anyone with power. Even in my leftier years I never favored speech codes: I didn’t trust anyone with the authority to decide which speech was illegal.

    • Replies: @anon
  18. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG

    I think libertarianism may make a comeback as people don’t trust anyone with power.

    How’s that Free State Project working out, again?

  19. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:

    “Additionally, we should have protections in place for a person’s political orientation.”

    I don’t see that happening. Rarely have civil rights been extended to include whites in this country, and that’s whom the left thinks would benefit most, so they won’t go for it. Leftists don’t usually do things that hurt their interests. They are fundamentally self-interested. For the most part, civil rights protections are extended only to members of the democrat ruling coalition for the purpose of bolstering white leftist support, either through demoralizing the opposition or emboldening their electoral coalition. Republicans and whites can pound sand. This isn’t about fairness; it’s about putting down white liberal enemies while helping their electoral friends. That’s why the left had no problem suing that Colorado religious baker while hypocritically attacking guys like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins the moment they attacked Muslims in the same way they used to attack white Christians; it was never about “religion” but about attacking “the other.” The majority of white male Christians vote for republican while the vast majority of Muslims and Jews vote ruling class. It’s really as simple as that. Oppressive systems rarely reform to be less repressive absent force because those with power stand to lose most.

    • Replies: @Mike P.
  20. How and why would an employer need to know someone’s private expression, except for the [purposes of health and benefits and in that I am all for limiting any benefits to spouses as in male and female.

    As someone who has been repeatedly and inaccurately designated as oriented toward same relational conduct . . . and its more than annoying, I am not fond of the land mine environment that the new constructs invite.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  21. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    There is so e truth in what you say. If someone makes an issue of their sexuality at work, then they are sort of setting up their employer for legal problems.

    It also depends on the job. Should you be able to fire an accountant for being homosexual? Probably not. But should you be able to fire a high school teacher for being homosexual? Or a youth worker? Or a school psychologist?

    • Agree: Rosie
  22. “But should you be able to fire a high school teacher for being homosexual? Or a youth worker? Or a school psychologist?”

    Unless the . . . behavior contradicts some safety or policy ethical policy, the grounds seem thin. However, this is where Gov. Reagan did some substantial harm traditional ethos. The conservatives which comprised a good portion of CA during his governorship, passed a law that would have barred the promotion and the advocacy of this behavior in education. However, Gov. Reagan vetoed the measure and it did muster being over ridden.

    Today educators openly promote, advocate, recruit, encourage the behavior. The number of political and supposed christian leaders who upon acknowledging that their their children had chosen this expression have given way on challenging it and the results have been disaster.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Feryl
  23. There may come a time when some congregation will have to defend in court their religious belief that bars this choice of .expression. In most of christian practice this behavior would not only bar employment and rightfully so, it would bar participating as a member of the congregation anyone so engaged.

    And I for one would defend that christian understanding, that anyone who chooses this behavior or engages in it in any manner can certainly be removed that body of faith and practice.

  24. anon[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The attitude of the Generation born around 1930 was ”Live and let live” and ”Mind your own business”. People were aware that plenty of politicians, public servants, teachers, ministers, were homosexual, but it wasn’t raised in public.
    It’s possible that Gen Z have rejected the cowardice and hypocrisy of their ancestors.

  25. gate666 says:
    @Thomm

    you cannot convince him.he is brain washed.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  26. @Rosie

    Still, I think these interests can be balanced with fair outcomes for everyone, if all are acting in good faith with sincere regard for everyone’s point of view. The question is whether that is realistic.

    Civnattery for the workplace. “I’m sure the gays will assimilate, as long as we’re nice to them!”

  27. chedolf says:

    I break ranks and stand with woke whites on this one. Additionally, we should have protections in place for a person’s political orientation.

    I think you misunderstand the political environment. The people who drive the Overton window ever-leftward aren’t liberals seeking a good faith negotiation to set the optimal balance of civil liberties. They’re what Spandrell calls “status-maximizing sociopaths” competing in a holiness spiral. Whenever you help them lock in one goal, they immediately advance to the next lunacy. They don’t care about particular goals, they care about advancing, period. You won’t get political orientation protection in exchange for expanding gay rights. You’ll get the opposite because you’re emboldening leftists who want to earn status by crushing “bigots.”

  28. “I break ranks and stand with woke whites on this one. Additionally, we should have protections in place for a person’s political orientation. Political beliefs are significantly genetic in origin. It’s hardly any fairer to fire a person for being a conservative than it is to fire him for being black.”

    Yep, because freedom of association is a BAD THING. More laws protecting deviant and predatory identity groups is a GOOD THING.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  29. SFG says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Interesting. I’d suspect his time in Hollywood had something to do with that–probably knew a couple of closeted gay people and thought, “They’re OK…”

  30. “Interesting. I’d suspect his time in Hollywood had something to do with that–probably knew a couple of closeted gay people and thought, “They’re OK…”

    That and his children, I think. At any rate history had demonstrated those conservatives spot on. The liberals born out of the “Vietnam Period” have among their elements a group that simply has no self control to limits their wants. They distort all boundary lines to advance their agenda.

    What I find interesting, is that for all their liberality of relational behavior, they are quick to use the same as a weapon.

  31. Talha says:

    Peace.

  32. @Lars Porsena

    It’s a pragmatic response rather than a principled one.

    Free association is the ideal. As things stand now, though, the Woke have it and we do not. We’re not getting rid of protected status, so we might as well try and get some of it for ourselves.

  33. @The Alarmist

    Common decency is dead, dead, dead.

  34. @EliteCommInc.

    You wouldn’t mind owning the role for the purposes of your membership in the commentariat, though, would you? A black gay guy makes for a pretty stout shield!

  35. @gate666

    They’re not perfect, but they’re not garbage, either. They ask a lot of interesting questions. Mileage will vary.

  36. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I understand where you’re coming from. Without freedom of association, there can be no real liberty. But we’re a long way away from being free. For now, if we can at least get some neosporin for the chain chafing, that would be something.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  37. Hibernian says:
    @Rosie

    Some cCatholic school teachers have told quite loudly by entering into same sex marriages. They then tried to keep the jobs up to and including court action. In Indianapolis a Jesuit high school said “No problem” and the Bishop de-Catholicized the school; no word of any disciplinary action against the priests and/or brothers.

  38. Tulip says:

    This is bullshit. Employers should be able to fire whomever they want. Anyone competent and gay is going to be able to find a comparable gig in this day and age. Its the “incompetent and _____” that needs anti-discrimination laws.

    Anyone who believes that the government is going to enforce laws against discrimination with an even-hand is fooling themselves. We passed laws against racial discrimination in 1964, and by 1968 those laws had been reinterpreted to allow for “positive discrimination” for historically disadvantaged minorities, which then got a face lift into “diversity” by a bunch of Nixon/Reagan appointees to the Supreme Court. Even if we got anti-discrimination laws for politics, those laws would protect people with politics that “punches up”, not people with politics that “punches down”, who already have all the power. It just pure David French strategy. [But in Europe. . . you don’t live in Europe, and Europe wasn’t diverse when all those laws were passed, and it is doubtful the Europe of the past will survive except in the imagination. like Shangri-La.]

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  39. Mike P. says:
    @anon

    Most European countries include political opinion in their non-discrimination laws. So does the D.C. Code.

    • LOL: iffen
  40. “This is bullshit. Employers should be able to fire whomever they want. Anyone competent and gay is going to be able to find a comparable gig in this day and age. Its the “incompetent and _____” that needs anti-discrimination laws.”

    Hmmmmm . . .

    not for traits that are benign or behaviors that don’t violate some policy and even then — I think don’t think it is unreasonable to have due process. Technically you are correct, who I hire or don’t and why is really my business. However, what history demonstrates is that without some guidelines people can get abused individually or en masse. Companies can and do create hostile work environment purely for political, and personal reasons.

    Laughing. look at the president of the US. Legally hired and from before day one has existed in a hostile environment. There are a lot of aspects about this about the nation’s executive I don’t appreciate and disagree with. Personally, there’s no benefit for this deplorable. However, he is entitled to operate in a work environment in which legitimate contention is loaded with constant and daily attacks that are based on falsehood, that is the case even as a political leader. And if that the case for him, then so much more for government employees and even privately hired.

    Being white is insufficient grounds for termination in my view.

    That you choose to have relations with people of the same sex in the privacy of your space, odd as that may be —- not really my business . . .

    There personnel departments that actually have processes for harassing people out of work for very reasons. Competition, egos, political machinations . . . even what might be legitimate work ethics and practice can be treated suspect.

    And in today’s political climate — it might not take much to find oneself on the targeted end of because you rubbed someone the wrong way.

    If you define opposition to “same sex marriage” as bigotry as liberal do — that could be a very moderating force in any workplace. I think even on most polling data people are giving politically correct responses.

  41. I oppose same sex behavior period. I think I can hold that view without discriminating. The problem is that what constitutes “racism”, hatred bigotry and discrimination have been so blotted in emotional feel, or connected to one must condone “x” or else as to make any conversation almost impossible.

    And I put a large portion of that blame squarely on the previous president, whose definition of racism was convenient and useless. One would think that a constitutional lawyer would know better than to dance around in the muck of bland epistemology, but he seemed to have tossed accuracy to the wind.

    • Replies: @Ghak
  42. @Mr. Rational

    Well…maybe a gay could be fired for blowing somebody while on the clock, but that might be a different deal.

    • Replies: @iffen
  43. @Tulip

    One reason there is a much wider range of political parties in Europe is because of legal protections those involved in them enjoy.

    • Replies: @Tulip
  44. Feryl says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    Unless the . . . behavior contradicts some safety or policy ethical policy, the grounds seem thin. However, this is where Gov. Reagan did some substantial harm traditional ethos. The conservatives which comprised a good portion of CA during his governorship, passed a law that would have barred the promotion and the advocacy of this behavior in education. However, Gov. Reagan vetoed the measure and it did muster being over ridden.

    On the elite “fringes” of society the 1970’s is when the pro-homo movement took off. Most ordinary people could not have cared less, and didn’t feel any sort of “sympathy” for gays until the AIDS crisis of the 80’s. Even then, of course, many older people and many blue collar people still were fairly anti-gay. The full Oprah-fication regarding gay men would really commence after around 1993. People who think that we are “pro-gay” right now ought to remember just how radical the mid-1990’s were at that time, compared to the previous time periods.

    Also, Reagan got a free pass (in the eyes of the shallow right-leaning contingent of the Me Generation) because he bitched about Big Government all the time. Back in the late 70’s their was skepticism about Reagan’s future prospects because he ruled in California during the 1970’s cultural revolution. Thing is, by 1980 all that many people seemed to care about was electing someone who would “fight big government” and “big labor”. Reagan turned out to be as big of a con politically and economically as he was culturally. Government became bigger and more poorly run after 1980. The post-1980 Reaganite wing of the GOP are charlatans and con artists. They always complained that Rockefeller Republicans and New Deal Democrats were gutless and irresponsible. Well, most people in their right mind now agree that our government sure worked a lot better when “the adults” (e.g., moderates*) were in charge. The Me Generation were fools for buying into the notion that New Dealism was archaic and flawed and could be replaced with something “better” (e.g., the truly radical and nation wrecking neo-liberal program of free trade, market de-regulation, and open borders).

    *I’m not using “moderate” as interchangeable with “centrist”. Moderate means exactly what the dictionary says: balanced, temperate, agreeable, etc. “Centrist”, however, is a nice way of saying”neo-liberal whore”. Moderates dominated the leadership of both parties from the 1930’s-early 1960’s, which is precisely why America got so much done during those decades. You didn’t have worthless caricatures of each side’s worst impulses setting the tone of discourse or policy. That’s why Reaganite pioneer Barry Goldwater got routed when the GOP’s frustrated Reaganites** jumped the gun in the mid-1960’s. The more politically moderate Nixon was much more successful in 1968 and 1972.

    **The Reaganites are eternally frustrated because their own ideology….Never works. We’re never going to live a society where people magically mind their own business and only rely on the government for law enforcement and military defense, nor can we always rely on the private sector to be honest and creative. The Reaganites never come anywhere close to implementing their goals, and in fact, choose to sulk and get jobs as think tank automatons rather than do anything particularly useful. Compare that to the New Dealers building out charming mid-20th century suburbia, the interstate highway system, NASA, and the communications infrastructure that would give us the internet eventually. Reaganites make the government more worthless while letting the private sector get away with all kinds of abuses regarding monopolies and exploitation. Sure, why won’t Disney be creative seeing as how the government’s failure to enforce anti-trust has allowed Disney to suck up dozens of properties which appear to indefinitely be owned by Disney until such time that the studio sells them off. Which never happens, BTW; Disney wants to keep making money with established characters in lieu of having to make anything original. Is that the private sector “magic” the Reaganite’s always are talking up? The Reaganites threw away a society proven to work reasonably well (The New Deal West) and replaced it with excess, fraud, treachery, unfulfilled promises, and excuses.

  45. Feryl says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    I understand where you’re coming from. Without freedom of association, there can be no real liberty. But we’re a long way away from being free. For now, if we can at least get some neosporin for the chain chafing, that would be something.

    The closest we’ve ever come to idealized “freedom” of interaction, movement, and commercial enterprise can really only be found within ethnically homogenous Anglo-Dutch cultures. Secondarily, it can be found within Teutonic/Nordic cultures. Other than that….Good luck. Trusting people to exercise their freedoms requires…..Trust. Which what, the NYTimes (?) recently pointed out when in a strangely lucid article they admitted that the most agreeable people in America can mainly be found in the parts of America settled by, and still heavily populated by, Puritan and Midlander Brits and/or the culturally similar Teutons from some regions of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Jews, Celts, Italians, Mexicans, etc. are just cut from a different cloth. And lashing out at WASPs and Nordics, and eventually replacing them culturally and in some cases genetically, will cost us our freedom and cultural heritage. We see what the media became after WW2 ended; “isolationist” crypto-Nords like Lindbergh were blamed for letting the Holocaust happen, and suddenly all sorts of non-Protestants were dominating the parameters of discourse in the media; by 1980 it was hard to ascertain the fundamentally NW European Protestant and quite British roots of America, given the amount of ink wasted on sentimental and vain BS being pushed by Ellis Islanders, who in turn would to some degree be eventually replaced professionally and culturally by the legions of New Americans welcomed in by Reagan, The Bushes, Clinton, and Obama. Nowadays many media bylines feature names that essentially were non-existent in America prior to 1980. We’ve gone from media driven narratives centered on Irish-Catholics and Jews to narratives centered on Asians, Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks not descended from the older generation of enslaved blacks in America.

    Note that the WASP-Nordics are themselves to blame for this state of affairs; after WW2, they to an increasing degree felt ashamed of their own accomplishments and began to let other “tribes” push them around. Not one particular tribe, mind you (the Scots-Irish “borderers” who have long been loathed by the other British folkways). That’s one ancient rivalry that’s not going away anytime soon. Hell, Jews bonded with WASPs via mutual disdain for the “rednecks” of the South and Appalachia.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  46. Marty T says:
    @Rosie

    No, it’s not realistic. The sexual deviance lobby is vile, hateful and ruthless. They made advances through intimidation and bullying, supporting firings and lawsuits against those who disagree with their agenda. These “antidiscrimination” laws are nothing but a tool to sue and ostracize Christians.

  47. Marty T says:
    @216

    Why would Republican legislatures add sexual deviants as a protected class at all? Just make political belief protected and leave it at that. If there’s a democrat gov, add homos but not trannies in exchange for politics…take it or leave it.

  48. “What if a Christian is known to attend a conservative church where homosexuality is considered a sin?”

    I think its funny that people behave as though christians haven’t lived among people who err in life as routine. And in fact, are quite aware the people around them are in fact as they once were and from time to time still err.

    • Replies: @anon
  49. “Political beliefs are significantly genetic in origin. It’s hardly any fairer to fire a person for being a conservative than it is to fire him for being black.”

    laughing. I was intrigued as anyone by the suggestions that our virtues are genetic. However, I am not sure there is much evidence that said virtues are as tide to biology as keenly as skin color which is soley biology.

    It’s a stretch in my view to claim that conservative ethos resides in any particular color biology schema, uniquely

  50. Ghak says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    How can you opposed something without discriminating, or to be more blunt, how can you usefully oppose something without using discrimination and the law as a weapon of deterrent, is that just like being opposed to smuggling personally while not arresting and prosecuting them? How are you suppose to deter something, say like adultery or sodomy without using ostracism and the force of the law as a deterrent against abbereny behavior, or s this cowardice in the face or the enemy?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  51. Tulip says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    If the intent is to encourage more political parties, you would be better served with pushing for prop rep and some of the electoral reforms that the Greens push. But at the end of the day, in Europe, the parties merge into a coalition. In America, the national parties already are a coalition, in Europe, you don’t get to elect the coalition.

    It seems likely we will get gay anti-discrimination laws on the federal level sooner or later, but I think political protections will never happen, because the Democrats will want to purge the wrong-thinkers and the GOP will back business interests.

  52. An employer owns the job he/she is advertising for a worker to fill. As a property rights issue, the employer can terminate an employee for absolutely any reason or no reason at all because the job belongs to the employer, not the employee. An employer agrees to associate with an employee and the employee agrees to associate with the employer as part of the employment process. If the employer no longer wants to associate with the employee or vice versa, each has the absolute right to no longer associate with the other.

    It’s a corruption of logic to even allow an employee to claim he/she has some status apart from receiving wages for labor. The employee has absolutely no rights to a ‘job’ as the job is owned 100% by the employer and the employer has no duty to maintain an association with the employee beyond what the employer deems appropriate.

  53. iffen says:
    @Twodees Partain

    blowing somebody while on the clock

    Which way is the penalty? Taking too long or accomplishing the task too quickly?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Ghak
  54. anon[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    I think it’s funny that people behave as though christians haven’t lived among people who err in life as routine.

    Depends on the time frame. Christians living in Islamic countries have often been oppressed with dhimmi laws. Christians living in Christian countries are able to get along with other denominations to a varying degree. Christians living in SJW countries will find themselves either baking the cake, or going bankrupt.

    Beta O’Rourke has already floated the trial balloon on this topic: removal of Johnson Act tax exemption from churches that don’t toe the SJW line on homosexuality. We’ll be hearing that again in the future along with other ideas, possibly including Direct Action in areas infested by Antifa.

  55. Ghak says:
    @iffen

    What makes you people think that LGBTQIAGKFJGF283873727 people will be happy living basically as second class citizens in your proposed generous concession, with some legal rights but not a whole lot of others, with have still having to deal with massive cultural discrimination and ostracism, or that they will not continously agitate to have the same legal rights as straights, and so they will still have to be continously kept down at the point of a bayonet, lest they get too uppity like in the 60s? I mean second class citizenship for a whole group of people has never really been a stable solution in the long run.

    • Replies: @iffen
  56. “The employee has absolutely no rights to a ‘job’ as the job is owned 100% by the employer and the employer has no duty to maintain an association with the employee beyond what the employer deems appropriate.”

    Here’s your problem the level of monies and support systems provided by government, which is not a privately owned entity, then one is subject to similar standards.

  57. “Beta O’Rourke has already floated the trial balloon on this topic: removal of Johnson Act tax exemption from churches that don’t toe the SJW line on homosexuality.”

    A nonstarter as it violates the the very amendment he attempting to bend out of meaning.

    On the homosexual marriage celebrations demand. I think the wrong arguments were or at least crucial arguments were ignored. Namely that such ceremonies are a cultural event, they represent a celebrating a behavior that is condemned by christ and christians are forbidden to participate in the like as they would a satanic ritual.

    • Replies: @anon
  58. iffen says:
    @Ghak

    LGBTQIAGKFJGF283873727 people will be happy living basically as second class citizens in your proposed generous concession

    LGBT(x)(n) are not happy people. (Has anyone ever seen a lesbian give a genuine smile?) It is an unfortunate (?) side effect of being abnormal.

    FWIW, I consider it to be a normal abnormality.

    • Replies: @anon
  59. “How can you opposed something without discriminating, or to be more blunt, how can you usefully oppose something without using discrimination and the law as a weapon of deterrent, is that just like being opposed to smuggling personally while not arresting and prosecuting them? How are you suppose to deter something, say like adultery or sodomy without using ostracism and the force of the law as a deterrent against abbereny behavior, or s this cowardice in the face or the enemy?”

    I think the question is important. Certainly discrimination is part of living. We discriminate all the time. The question is whether said discrimination violates the Constitution. That has a lot to do with environment circumstances/conditions related to the discrimination

    one size does not fit all

    ——————————————-

    I think there are some limits to deter unwanted behaviors. And community has to make those choices. I don’t think there is anything amiss with a community discouraging same sex behavior. And based on what value the behavior provides community in the case of same sex relation — none.

    In fact, the very ethos and practice runs counter to community’s growth and maintenance. It is a retroactive construct that makes war of the very foundations of community.

    Adultery is disruptive in that it places stress of the stable structures of marriage which is the centerpiece of any community. There are places that still outlaw adultery. A spouse can literally be sued for engaging in “disaffection.”

    The question is always rooted on impacts. I don’t think the Constitution allows for invasions of privacy in which someone’s person is not at risk — I support that privacy right. So all the rights of the Constitution apply. But no one should be compelled to support behaviors of personal liberty.

    Your posit invites what is permissible by law and what may be legal but socially disdained an encouraged.

    When the homosexual demands the right to marriage, and they want the community to support said behavior, a community has been invited to weigh in and no community has an obligation to support destructive or nonproductive behaviors. And the supreme courts response about love and hate is simply beyond their scope to address.

    I am going to defend your right to private space, whether or not i approve of your private right supported in the public sphere is another matter.

  60. @Feryl

    Note that the WASP-Nordics are themselves to blame for this state of affairsJ

    If you don’t respect yourself, will anyone else respect you?

    The answer is “no” for all but… WASP-Nordics, I think. Sigh.

  61. @Ghak

    Is this the battlefield you want to meet Woke Capital on?

  62. anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    A nonstarter as it violates the the very amendment he attempting to bend out of meaning.

    Mao infamously pointed out that all power comes from the barrel of a gun. Beta O’Rourke is also on record supporting door-to-door confiscation of guns. It’s not as if he cares about that piece of paper. The question is who supports his trial balloons?

    I repeat: either bake the cake, or pay the price. Maybe you have not been paying attention to some of these issues?

    On the homosexual marriage celebrations demand. I think the wrong arguments were or at least crucial arguments were ignored. Namely that such ceremonies are a cultural event, they represent a celebrating a behavior that is condemned by christ and christians are forbidden to participate in the like as they would a satanic ritual.

    What leads you to believe that SJW’s have any problem with satanic rituals? Any problem at all?

  63. anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen

    (Has anyone ever seen a lesbian give a genuine smile?)

    I have.

  64. ” Christians living in SJW countries will find themselves either baking the cake, or going bankrupt.”

    As I recall one of these cases has been overturned and rightfully so.

    —————————————————-

    “If you don’t respect yourself, will anyone else respect you?”

    Well, this cliche’s doesn’t bare out in reality. As an instructor, coach, instructor one meets lots of people who don’t have self respect, depending on how defines or applies “self respect”. Often times its a catchphrase for trying to get someone to stand up for something another thinks they should stand up for. But nonetheless, is respect in my view is not earned. Its a given. Regardless of station, income, or intelligence. My parents taught me — you respect people regardless.

    One might earn credits, but fair and decent treatment — is expected to all — And by golly gee wow, would a violation of that principle get an earful. When I disrespect another, it is not unusual for me to experience some guilt over that and manner of redress. There was one exception to that rule, that has been one of choice in response. That was in 2003, what was done should not have been. It was lies from top to bottom. However, some people should not have been on the receiving end of my disapproval. And had the tactics of using the security not been engaged, i have no doubt, that very soon i would do what most people do,

    gone up to so and so and apologized, even if they deserved. Because my actions are the concern, not others. But once they got they opted for a pound of flesh for what was their failure and their misdeed — for get it. I have remained in KMA mode except for one person, and she stood up and actually spilled the beans . . . people are sick. Including the police — integrity is a hit and miss with people. And never before 9/11 was there so much open bizarre accusation and suggestion about my orientation — slanderous filth, for which I have no capacity to forgive a soul.

    So the whole homosexual stick is just that where I am concerned a weapon even used by by liberals. And as opposed to the intent, it has only reinforced my conservative perspective —

    9/11 was a crime in 2001 and it remains a crime today that should have been treated as such instead of an act of war — by a foreign power. And it takes all my effort not to sit back and simply grant that the fall of the country on that pin is well deserved and recompense has yet to have its cup filled to the brim. Want to slap on disparaging false references, can’t stop people, but it won’t resolve the deeper fissures of consequence . . . and part of that was the advance of the same sex agenda and all that has followed . . . shame that.

    laughing,

    I guess I am a long way from being healed up . . . but atthe end of the day, even my enemies are entitled to respect even if they aren’t entitled, so sayeth

    the savior.

  65. iffen says:

    If homosexuality is viewed as a disability, then it seems that there is some legitimacy to the idea that such disabled persons should be protected in the employment venue.

    • Replies: @Talha
  66. Talha says:
    @iffen

    If homosexuality is viewed as a disability

    Waiting for the Cerebral Palsy Pride Parade any day now…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  67. “What leads you to believe that SJW’s have any problem with satanic rituals? Any problem at all?”

    That contend should have been juxtaposed against the behavior and in line with issues of conscience. As I noted, I think one of these cases has been overturned.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court

    As I noted in my previous response . . . it seems I am aware of the current and relevant matters related to this issue.

  68. Rather unfortunate image that came with that post, I thought I deleted it.

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/…rules…/1052989001/

    For those of us who have spent years at TAC, this issue was prominant and considered previously settled, I among others disagreed as chance would have it . . .

    I don’t think this business of marriage is settled either. But basic practical arguments have not been made at the time, maybe they will figure it out.

  69. Pretty cuckservative take to support the right of perverts to impose themselves on society in hopes of some imaginary reciprocity for your side that will never ever materialize.

    It’s very strange that the people most invested in doing battle (at least intellectually) with the logical conclusions of liberalism still seem so unable to actually find the nerve to contradict its core tenets. You want protection for your politics while conceding far more than that to your opponent (i.e. that your position is actually wrong and that homosexuals do deserve special protections because there’s “nothing wrong” with homosexuality).

    Liberals aren’t wrong for suppressing populist politics because “everyone should have a voice in politics”, they’re wrong because populism is morally superior to their wrong and evil beliefs. Making belonging to or forming a Liberal political party illegal would be totally justified if there were ever an opportunity. Likewise, not throwing them in prison is already a very charitable treatment of homosexuals, they shouldn’t get anything more than that.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS