Gay federal workers can be fired for orientation

[RedImperator]

You know that is just fucked up; he/she is interpreting discrimination laws, such that it allows them to discriminate. Surely if someone is actually fired because of this there will be a massive legal battle in the works, right?

Which is why they won't actually enforce this law. Instead, they would like to keep the statement on the books, unchallenged, in order to create a pervasive atmosphere of intolerance that makes gays reluctant to admit their orientation.

Clever little fuckers, wouldn't you say?

Although I suspect some politician somewhere, would use it to denounce Bush and his ilk (or just the Councel General) if they like to try and get them out of office... or is the Christian right that strong, that no one will actually do it?

The problem is while that the majority of the population is not fundamentalist Christian, the majority IS indifferent to or uncomfortable with homosexuality, and won't be motivated to vote against Bush because one of his underlings is a bigot. There are, of course, going to be people who change their vote over this, but the fact is, most of the people who would vote against Bush over were never going to vote for him in the first place. It pleases the fundies while it alienates people who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.

[The Albino Raven]

Which is why they won't actually enforce this law. Instead, they would like to keep the statement on the books, unchallenged, in order to create a pervasive atmosphere of intolerance that makes gays reluctant to admit their orientation.

[sarcasm&ignorance]well, yes, because if they don't admit that they are gay, maybe they will be cured of it[/sarcasm&ignorance]

Don't know why the government cares anyway.

[Sharp-kun]

And, why do people still support Bush?

Because Kerry really isn't much better?

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know after the patriot act, his union busting policies (including cutting the Federal Mediators commission by 50%) etc, I get really sick when he talks about "Protecting our Freedom" fuckin double speak....

[Alyrium Denryle]

And, why do people still support Bush?

Because Kerry really isn't much better?

At least he doesnt try to write hatred into the constitution, and conveniently forget the bill of rights(as much)

[Sharp-kun]

And, why do people still support Bush?

Because Kerry really isn't much better?

At least he doesnt try to write hatred into the constitution, and conveniently forget the bill of rights(as much)

True, though at least Bush has some consistancy. We know what he's going to try (and fail) to do. Kerry's the kind of person who could very well change as soon as he's elected.

Neither of them are good.

[Col. Crackpot]

True, though at least Bush has some consistancy. We know what he's going to try (and fail) to do. Kerry's the kind of person who could very well change as soon as he's elected.

Neither of them are good.

and that is the crux of the election issue.

candidate 1: some of his ideals are offensive to many, but he is consistant and he "stick to his guns" so to speak. Thus the electoral base is mobilized and solidly stands in support.

candidate 2: some of his ideals are offensive to many, so he moderates his stance and alienates his base supporters. Thus, his electoral base is left voting halfheartedly, or finding a 3rd party candidate that more suits their ideals.

[LadyTevar]

True, though at least Bush has some consistancy. We know what he's going to try (and fail) to do. Kerry's the kind of person who could very well change as soon as he's elected.

Neither of them are good.

and that is the crux of the election issue.

candidate 1: some of his ideals are offensive to many, but he is consistant and he "stick to his guns" so to speak. Thus the electoral base is mobilized and solidly stands in support.

candidate 2: some of his ideals are offensive to many, so he moderates his stance and alienates his base supporters. Thus, his electoral base is left voting halfheartedly, or finding a 3rd party candidate that more suits their ideals.

it makes me wonder what Dean and Edwards might have campaigned on, before they quit.

[JME2]

Bush is a uniter, not a divider

March 20, 2004 | Daily Mislead Archive
Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay


Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" 1 as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." 2 While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. 3

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." 4

Sources:

1. Debates, 10/11/2000.
2. "OSC to study whether bias law covers gays", Federal Times, 03/15/2004.
3. "Gay Rights Information Taken Off Site", Washington Post, 02/18/2004.
4. "Special Counsel Under Scrutiny", Washington Post, 02/23/2004.

This only furthers my desire to see Bush and his cronies ejected from the White House.

[Col. Crackpot]

True, though at least Bush has some consistancy. We know what he's going to try (and fail) to do. Kerry's the kind of person who could very well change as soon as he's elected.

Neither of them are good.

and that is the crux of the election issue.

candidate 1: some of his ideals are offensive to many, but he is consistant and he "stick to his guns" so to speak. Thus the electoral base is mobilized and solidly stands in support.

candidate 2: some of his ideals are offensive to many, so he moderates his stance and alienates his base supporters. Thus, his electoral base is left voting halfheartedly, or finding a 3rd party candidate that more suits their ideals.

it makes me wonder what Dean and Edwards might have campaigned on, before they quit.

Dean would have made the Nader factor a moot point. Granted, there would still have been some crazies and neo commies that would have voted for Nader, but they wouln't have voted Democrat even if Terry McAulliffe managed to exhume and reanimate Franklin Roosevelt. With the way Kerry is flip flopping and moderating i'm beginning to think that Dean would have been the better candidate (from a democratic standpoint) to run against Bush. He is already trying to distance himself from his politcal history. That comes across as phony. Dean would have stuck to his guns, thats just the kind of guy he seems to be. Edwards is a threat in 4-8 years. He is just too young and pretty faced now. But goddamn that man has charm.... he's almost Clintonesque when working a crowd. Unless he majorly fucks something (else) up, it will be Bush in another controversial squeaker. Fear the power of the Fundies.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is while that the majority of the population is not fundamentalist Christian, the majority IS indifferent to or uncomfortable with homosexuality, and won't be motivated to vote against Bush because one of his underlings is a bigot. There are, of course, going to be people who change their vote over this, but the fact is, most of the people who would vote against Bush over were never going to vote for him in the first place. It pleases the fundies while it alienates people who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.

As I've said elsewhere, this is a "wedge issue". The idea is to force people who feel very strongly about this issue to vote on the basis of this issue and nothing else.

[Col. Crackpot]

As I've said elsewhere, this is a "wedge issue". The idea is to force people who feel very strongly about this issue to vote on the basis of this issue and nothing else.

i don't see how that works this time. Kerry has come out against gay marriage, and has thrown his reluctant support to the half assed 'civil unions' compromise. Kerry will never be pro gay marriage so long as the Catholic Democrats are his base. So how can it be a wedge issue if both major candidates stand pretty much on the same side?

[Xon]

And, why do people still support Bush?

Because less than 50% of America's population votes. Thus by definition, the people more interested in getting Bush into power will vote. Were as people who dont care or object for some reason dont vote.

Thus the reason why voluntary voting is a bad thing, since because people by default are generally apathetic, minorities which command significant media power can drastically skewer the results from what would be the norm.

Basicly its a case of the sample population not being large enough compared to the total population.

Only way to 'fix' that is to get a large number of people actively involved, and voluntary voting isnt the way to go.

[Alyeska]

And, why do people still support Bush?

Because less than 50% of America's population votes. Thus by definition, the people more interested in getting Bush into power will vote. Were as people who dont care or object for some reason dont vote.

Thus the reason why voluntary voting is a bad thing, since because people by default are generally apathetic, minorities which command significant media power can drastically skewer the results from what would be the norm.

Basicly its a case of the sample population not being large enough compared to the total population.

Only way to 'fix' that is to get a large number of people actively involved, and voluntary voting isnt the way to go.

Forced voting is one of the dumbest fucking things you can do. Part of how democracy's work is people can CHOOSE what they want and they will simply choose not to vote. You think its bad now, guess what happens when people are forced to vote and they just vote while not giving a shit who they voted for because they don't care what happens.

[Xon]

And, why do people still support Bush?

Because less than 50% of America's population votes. Thus by definition, the people more interested in getting Bush into power will vote. Were as people who dont care or object for some reason dont vote.

Thus the reason why voluntary voting is a bad thing, since because people by default are generally apathetic, minorities which command significant media power can drastically skewer the results from what would be the norm.

Basicly its a case of the sample population not being large enough compared to the total population.

Only way to 'fix' that is to get a large number of people actively involved, and voluntary voting isnt the way to go.

Forced voting is one of the dumbest fucking things you can do. Part of how democracy's work is people can CHOOSE what they want and they will simply choose not to vote. You think its bad now, guess what happens when people are forced to vote and they just vote while not giving a shit who they voted for because they don't care what happens.

Compulsory voting works well in Australia, and other countries as well. Its just a method to force people to participate.

Once people are involved in doing something, they are much more likely to continue compared to someone who has no incentive to even start in the 1st place. Thats all compulsory voting does, force people to get involved.

Of course there are people who dont care about who they vote for under that type of system, infact there is a thing called the "donkey vote" in Australian voting. But they are in a minority compared to the people whoe couldnt be bother starting to vote but once started they do it anyway.

And like Wong stated, some people always vote for a particular party. So one shortcut is to allow the person to vote that they allow the party to descide how thier vote is spent.

And there is a difference between having a sizable chunk of the population not caring and not voting and a minority who just votes at random?

[Cornelius]

The democratic type government does not work as efficiently as it could, but how can you change it? Nearly all politicans are bad, they are gonna lie, and they are probably going to do the opposite of what they say after you vote for them. Then you are stuck with them.

It would be good if the world were idealistic and people got a long and politicans didn't lie, but its most likely impossible unless everyone lives in a utopian socialist theory.

[salm]

Forced voting is one of the dumbest fucking things you can do. Part of how democracy's work is people can CHOOSE what they want and they will simply choose not to vote. You think its bad now, guess what happens when people are forced to vote and they just vote while not giving a shit who they voted for because they don't care what happens.

people in countries like belgium where people have to go to vote can still vote for nobody by not putting a cross on the ballot at all. but if peopel are forced to get their lazy bums they´re more likely to inform themselves about political issues.
has anyone got a statistic on this topic?