What kind of opinions do you imagine he should have regarding homosexuality elsewhere?I was liking Cain, until he said he was going to be soft on DADT in the debate. If he's going to ignore homosexuality in the military, why reason do I have to believe that he's going to address homosexuality in our culture? The military should have higher standards than our culture, so if it accepts homosexuality then our culture certainly will as well. Only someone with strong moral values will get my vote.
I would guess a re-education camp somewhere.What kind of opinions do you imagine he should have regarding homosexuality elsewhere?
At the very least I would expect homosexuals to be banned from military service, as was the case pre-Clinton. I mean, the whole DADT concept doesn't even make sense. Encourage people to break the law as long as they don't get caught? What a stupid idea. I expect that state bans homosexual "marriage" be upheld and that DOMA be enforced, something which Obama has ordered the justice department not to do.What kind of opinions do you imagine he should have regarding homosexuality elsewhere?
Touche, though not regarding homosexuality as anything other than sexual preference I don't see DADT as a relevant policy at all.At the very least I would expect homosexuals to be banned from military service, as was the case pre-Clinton. I mean, the whole DADT concept doesn't even make sense. Encourage people to break the law as long as they don't get caught?
It is no more a behavioural issue than heterosexuality. Your argument invites the state sanctioned (and corporate allowed) enforcement of mass conformity by alienation of those with eccentric and/or taboo behaviour.I would also expect that sexual preference be removed as a protected class. I don't like the idea of protected classes at all, let the free market hire whoever it wants, but even if you do agree with having protected classes sexual preference still has no business being one. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue and employers most certainly should have the right to fire someone for behavior they dislike. A person's behavior reflects on the company, even behavior outside of work hours, and employers should be able to terminate the employment of employees whose behavior they disprove of.
Yeah, no.I would also expect that sexual preference be removed as a protected class. I don't like the idea of protected classes at all, let the free market hire whoever it wants, but even if you do agree with having protected classes sexual preference still has no business being one. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue...
I was liking Cain, until he said he was going to be soft on DADT in the debate. If he's going to ignore homosexuality in the military, why reason do I have to believe that he's going to address homosexuality in our culture? The military should have higher standards than our culture, so if it accepts homosexuality then our culture certainly will as well. Only someone with strong moral values will get my vote.
If the military should have higher standards than our culture, then that means they should be accepting homosexuals.I was liking Cain, until he said he was going to be soft on DADT in the debate. If he's going to ignore homosexuality in the military, why reason do I have to believe that he's going to address homosexuality in our culture? The military should have higher standards than our culture, so if it accepts homosexuality then our culture certainly will as well. Only someone with strong moral values will get my vote.
A person's behavior reflects on the company, even behavior outside of work hours, and employers should be able to terminate the employment of employees whose behavior they disprove of.
Since Herman Cain is getting so much TEA Party support does that mean all the lefty race baiters will retract their claims that the TEA Party is racist?
Where?Man . . . look at all the racist trashing of Cain in this thread . . .
Unless you're suggesting some kind of mass corporate conspiracy, then I don't know how you are imagining this would happen. And even if it did happen, why is that bad? Whether it is companies deciding who they hire, or government deciding who companies can hire, its still an issue of morality anytime you're telling people how they should or shouldn't behave. Why waste tax dollars on things that can be taken care of naturally in the free market by consumers?It is no more a behavioural issue than heterosexuality. Your argument invites the state sanctioned (and corporate allowed) enforcement of mass conformity by alienation of those with eccentric and/or taboo behaviour.
Yes, I would include sexual assualt as something that is against family values. There are already laws against sexual assault, so this would be an issue with law enforcement. Obama has refused to enforce natural marrage laws and inappropriate contentography laws, so it wouldn't suprise me if he's refusing to enforce sexual assault laws too. Also, I would assume the reason they seperate men and women in dorms is at least in part due to these sexual kinds of issues. How exactly is mixing openly homosexual men with stright men going to be much different?If, as you say, the military should have higher standards than our culture, then I would hope that the Commander In Chief would do something to address the abysmal rate at which female service members are sexually assaulted by their brothers-in-arms.
Nope. I'm not at all afraid to mention my religious or political views when relevent to a job interview question, and in many of my interviews I have when they ask personal related questions. Has it helped me or hurt my chances to get the job? Don't know and don't care. I am a skilled, reliable, and hardworking employee and any company would be lucky to have me. If any company is dumb enough to not hire me because I'm a Christian then I don't want to be working for them anyway, so both of us are happy.So...you'd really not mind if a company decided to fire anyone who was an evangelical Christian because they don't like evangelicals?
tulc(is curious)
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).Verticordious said:Unless you're suggesting some kind of mass corporate conspiracy, then I don't know how you are imagining this would happen.
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.And even if it did happen, why is that bad? Whether it is companies deciding who they hire, or government deciding who companies can hire, its still an issue of morality anytime you're telling people how they should or shouldn't behave. Why waste tax dollars on things that can be taken care of naturally in the free market by consumers?
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.There is a "gentleman's club" near the freeway exit I take to get to work and I've seen cars with company logos there, so I wrote down their license plate number and called the company to inform them about what that person was doing there and asked what their policy was on employees that participate in such behavior. Why should a company not have the right to choose to fire that person if they decide that person's behavior does not reflect the image they want to present to their consumers? Why should the government be able to decide whether the company can fire that person or not?
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?Yes, I would include sexual assualt as something that is against family values. There are already laws against sexual assault, so this would be an issue with law enforcement. Obama has refused to enforce natural marrage laws and inappropriate contentography laws, so it wouldn't suprise me if he's refusing to enforce sexual assault laws too. Also, I would assume the reason they seperate men and women in dorms is at least in part due to these sexual kinds of issues. How exactly is mixing openly homosexual men with stright men going to be much different?
Warning: You're talking to a guy who believes that the mere act of voting for Obama is an act of racism.Where?
Nope. I'm not at all afraid to mention my religious or political views when relevent to a job interview question, and in many of my interviews I have when they ask personal related questions. Has it helped me or hurt my chances to get the job? Don't know and don't care. I am a skilled, reliable, and hardworking employee and any company would be lucky to have me. If any company is dumb enough to not hire me because I'm a Christian then I don't want to be working for them anyway, so both of us are happy.
Since Herman Cain is getting so much TEA Party support does that mean all the lefty race baiters will retract their claims that the TEA Party is racist?
Correct, my answer is the same. If a company is dumb enough to fire me simply because I'm a Christian then I wouldn't be interested in working for them anyway.I'm sorry, you misunderstood, you already have the job say you've been working there for a few years they then decide to boot all evangelical Christians.
tulc(suspects the answer will, of course, be the same but just wanted you to understand what was being asked)
How is that any different than the employment issues that convicts face? Why is it ok to discriminate against thieves but not homosexuals? After all, thievery is just an alternative lifestyle. Some people earn a living by providing goods and services, and some people earn a living by stealing goods and services. Why shouldn't thieves be a protected class of citizens? Who are you to judge 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 behavioral tendencies from the job market.
That comment was not intended to have anything to with sexual preference, I was making the point that, whenever possible, I only want to support companies who have strong family values. I'm not expecting companies to go in to their employees homes and examine their behavior, but when such behavior is done in plain sight I expect some action to be taken If I am to continue business with them. The business should then have the choice of terminating the employee if they wish because that employee's actions do financial affect the company.That's not really behavior 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 promiscuous 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.
What difference would you be referring to?Are you telling me that you cannot separate the difference between the non-enforcement for specific inappropriate contentographic, "natural" marriage laws and that of sexual assault?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?