Buck's Bogart: The poor defenseless gay

S

spandy

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
If I was a HR person and had to fire someone, I would tell them they performed poorly, no matter what the real reason.

It works the same way in the real world.

So a law prohibiting firing someone for being gay would be quite ineffective.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. We've had to do it before, chalked it up to poor work attitude and I just started documenting every single incident regardless of the level of intervention required and made him sign each one, and then the day came when his ass finally showed up to work late after about 2 months of setting it up...here's your final check, Gtfo. Wasn't cause of sexual orientation or race cuz that's just fucked up, just the shit this guy talked about in the shop put everyone in a negative mood. Fucking politics all day, we couldn't stand him although he was a phenomenal installer and I personally agreed with most of what he said, just couldn't do it after numerous request for him to "change the station.".

If an employer wants you gone bad enough, eventually, they are going to fire you, period.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Dude, racism is dead... Let it go. We have an almost black president, we have black congressmen, we have black senators, doctors, professional athletes, movie stars, etc... The only entity opressing black people today is the government by telling them they are not good enough to make it without assistance.

The kids today are not worried about what color someone is unless they are in a street gang.

I believe the federal government should be almost completely dismantled.
Click to expand...
you never answered the question: was the federal government correct to step in and end jim crow laws when certain states would not do so on their own, or was the government overstepping its bounds by enforcing the constitution?

how about answering this one: is the federal government correct to step in and end workplace discrimination of gay people that certain states will not end it on their own, or would the federal government be overstepping its bounds by enforcing the constitution, specifically the equal protection clause in this case?

easy question here, kiddo. not sure why you refuse to actually answer it.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you never answered the question: was the federal government correct to step in and end jim crow laws when certain states would not do so on their own, or was the government overstepping its bounds by enforcing the constitution?

how about answering this one: is the federal government correct to step in and end workplace discrimination of gay people that certain states will not end it on their own, or would the federal government be overstepping its bounds by enforcing the constitution, specifically the equal protection clause in this case?

easy question here, kiddo. not sure why you refuse to actually answer it.
Click to expand...
No, the government should not do anything about it because it is a non-issue.

It has been clearly explained that if an employer wants you gone, they can fire you. I have stated that I support the employer being able to fire you for any reason and/or no reason.

Therefore.... NO NO NO...

Clear enough stupid?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
No, the government should not do anything about it because it is a non-issue.

It has been clearly explained that if an employer wants you gone, they can fire you. I have stated that I support the employer being able to fire you for any reason and/or no reason.

Therefore.... NO NO NO...

Clear enough stupid?
Click to expand...
thus illustrating that you hate the constitution and are a racist bigoted asshole.

thanks for playing.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Right to work states are against the constitution and are racist???

Thanks for playing stupid, stupid.
Click to expand...
no, states that refuse(d) to enforce equal protection of the law are racist and bigoted.

and you support their ability to continue jim crow laws or gay discrimination, because you hate the constitution apparently.

if you loved the constitution, you would want to see it enforced.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no, states that refuse(d) to enforce equal protection of the law are racist and bigoted.

and you support their ability to continue jim crow laws or gay discrimination, because you hate the constitution apparently.

if you loved the constitution, you would want to see it enforced.
Click to expand...
Hey bucky, can cars be racist, how about bicycles?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Hey bucky, can cars be racist, how about bicycles?
Click to expand...
cars and bicycles can not be racist, but their operators can be.

will you answer a couple yes or no questions please?

do you support the federal government enforcing civil rights?

would you support the federal government enforcing gay rights in the workplace?

both are clearly supported by the 14th amendment, in my opinion. would you agree?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
cars and bicycles can not be racist, but their operators can be.

will you answer a couple yes or no questions please?

do you support the federal government enforcing civil rights?

would you support the federal government enforcing gay rights in the workplace?

both are clearly supported by the 14th amendment, in my opinion. would you agree?
Click to expand...
If bicycles and cars cannot be racist, neither can states.
In response to your query:
Depends.
Depends.
No.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no, states that refuse(d) to enforce equal protection of the law are racist and bigoted.

and you support their ability to continue jim crow laws or gay discrimination, because you hate the constitution apparently.

if you loved the constitution, you would want to see it enforced.
Click to expand...
Protection is equal. I know a gay bar that fired a bartender because he wasn't gay.

It cuts both ways.

I support their right to do so.

I also have a gay friend, he was fired once because his employer found out that he had accessed a gay website on one of their computers.

Was he fired for being gay, or for visiting a social website while at work? I lean towards because he was gay because folks regularly went to facebook on their computers. But gay.com was too much for them.

So far, the federal government does not recognize sexual preference as a protective class. So you bashing particular states for their failure to do the same is bullshit. It isn't states being bad, a minority of states offer protective status based on sexual preference.

Eventually I would say that sexual preference will gain protective status. How about the straight bartender getting fired then from a gay bar?
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
This is a classic Liberal thread.

I can't do it on my own, please help me.

Poor and Defenceless because there are no laws protecting me from my abnormality.

That's just great!
We need many more laws, cops and lawyers to enforce your little dream world.

You really need to start doing things for yourself Buck-0.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Its just like this thread....I mean is there really a need to have a law protecting bucks bogart? Every thread is already bucks bogart anyway.
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Its just like this thread....I mean is there really a need to have a law protecting bucks bogart? Every thread is already bucks bogart anyway.
Click to expand...
That's right.
You can't complain about this thread or the ACLU will have you arrested for being ..... hmmm...... "Intolerant" to UB's pitiful woes and panty bunches.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
If bicycles and cars cannot be racist, neither can states.
In response to your query:
Depends.
Depends.
No.
Click to expand...
let's focus on the "no", the fact that you don't think civil rights or firing gays because they are gay fall under the purview of the equal protection clause.

if someone can be fired simply because they are gay, how are they enjoying equal protection of the law?

if a black person can be barred from getting lunch just because he is black, how is he enjoying equal protection of the law?

now you have to explain your answers, otherwise you are the guy who thinks its OK to bar black people from the lunch counter and fire debbie just because she enjoys licking clitoris rather than penis.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Nutes and Nugs said:
You really need to start doing things for yourself Buck-0.
Click to expand...
as a tall attractive straight white male, i enjoy every equal protection of the law and then some. it is called white privilege, and i get to enjoy the unfair benefits from it. i have no need to advocate for more rights for myself. i have them all already. others don't.

excuse me for wanting others to have equal protection of the law.
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
let's focus on the "no", the fact that you don't think civil rights or firing gays because they are gay fall under the purview of the equal protection clause.

if someone can be fired simply because they are gay, how are they enjoying equal protection of the law?

if a black person can be barred from getting lunch just because he is black, how is he enjoying equal protection of the law?

now you have to explain your answers, otherwise you are the guy who thinks its OK to bar black people from the lunch counter and fire debbie just because she enjoys licking clitoris rather than penis.
Click to expand...
Did I miss something here?
Is it still 1960 or something?

Maybe you missed it but people get fired for Not being gay or black or midgets.

When someone goes the extra mile and explains something to you, you blow them off as a racist.

You are like a broken record.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member


You know buck, back in the day when ppl beleived in something as strongly as you seem to they pledged their personal assets a fortunes to their cause...how do you measure up to this standard?
 
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i'd love to see a citation for this beyond the movie 'Bad Santa'.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking the movies, just real life.
I see the same things around here.


  • Protection is equal. I know a gay bar that fired a bartender because he wasn't gay.

    It cuts both ways.

    I support their right to do so.

    I also have a gay friend, he was fired once because his employer found out that he had accessed a gay website on one of their computers.

    Was he fired for being gay, or for visiting a social website while at work? I lean towards because he was gay because folks regularly went to facebook on their computers. But gay.com was too much for them.

    So far, the federal government does not recognize sexual preference as a protective class. So you bashing particular states for their failure to do the same is bullshit. It isn't states being bad, a minority of states offer protective status based on sexual preference.

    Eventually I would say that sexual preference will gain protective status. How about the straight bartender getting fired then from a gay bar?​




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top