Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Herman Cain for President!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Skavau" data-source="post: 57782088" data-attributes="member: 201202"><p>It doesn't happen - but you'd be apparently be okay with allowing it to happen. Unconventional behaviours frowned upon or considered bizarre would become more and more underground. No-one would own up to them if you allowed employers to fire them for it (or some of them). </p><p></p><p></p><p>It would lead to the complete employment isolation of all homosexuals. It would force them to pretend to be straight in order to work. Depending on how far you take it as well, the complete isolation of other minority groups and behavioural tendencies from the job market. </p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not really behaviour though, is it. What you're talking about is a sexual orientation. If a member of staff was outright openly (on company property, whilst representing the company) acting overtly promiscious then absolutely it would be reflecting negatively on the company and they would have every right to act. To extend this to someone's sexual preference though is just obscene.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Are you telling me that you cannot seperate the difference between the non-enforcement for specific inappropriate contentographic, "natural" marriage laws and that of sexual assault?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Skavau, post: 57782088, member: 201202"] It doesn't happen - but you'd be apparently be okay with allowing it to happen. Unconventional behaviours frowned upon or considered bizarre would become more and more underground. No-one would own up to them if you allowed employers to fire them for it (or some of them). It would lead to the complete employment isolation of all homosexuals. It would force them to pretend to be straight in order to work. Depending on how far you take it as well, the complete isolation of other minority groups and behavioural tendencies from the job market. That's not really behaviour though, is it. What you're talking about is a sexual orientation. If a member of staff was outright openly (on company property, whilst representing the company) acting overtly promiscious then absolutely it would be reflecting negatively on the company and they would have every right to act. To extend this to someone's sexual preference though is just obscene. Are you telling me that you cannot seperate the difference between the non-enforcement for specific inappropriate contentographic, "natural" marriage laws and that of sexual assault? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Herman Cain for President!
Top
Bottom