The people on this board that scare me the most..

[hippifried]

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

You left out "color, creed,& national origin". Those are also part of the Civil Rights Act. I believe your scenario would fall under "creed".

SarahG wrote:

But if it were simply for establishing next of kin- then there is no point for having marriages, people could merely go out and make wills stipulating where they want their assets et al to go when they die.

"Next of kin" isn't about wills. There's no law that says you owe your immediate family anything upon your death. People can & do write their wills any way they please. Once you're dead, what do you care about probate suits?

I think that in most cases all the marriage license is and originally was, was a way to raise funding for local governments, but when combined with eliminating common law marriages it does come off disconcerting... especially since there is no real benefit to the gov's hand in the picture.

Nah. The licence is cheap. It's just a recording fee. It covers handling & permanent storage of the public document. I don't really have a problem with keeping track of who's who. We keep records of births, deaths, adoptions, familial & name changes. It's basically just census data. The problem comes with the binding legal contract that comes with the licence & all the regulation over individual life choices. Based on what? We're back on this "I don't like that so you can't have it!" routine. The licencing procedure gives the state too much power to abuse. We already have laws that protect children from adult coersion, so aside from that, the only stipulation should be that the choice of someone's next of kin has to be another human being in order to be recognized & recorded. Sexual practices not only shouldn't be a factor, they shouldn't even be assumed based on the gender of the principals.

I'm up in the air about "civil unions". I've heard good arguments from all sides. Marriage is a civil union when it has anything to do with the state. The problem I have is in setting different parameters depending on who's unionizing. The government isn't allowed to discriminate, so if they're going to write the contract, it has to be exactly the same across the board.

[a994]

I know I am going to get the some heat for this, but I have never been one to not speak up.

The people who scare me the most on this board are those that support the anti gay, anti transgender, social conservative movement of the Republican party.

These are the same people who will rally agaisnt gay rights, make homophobic-transphobic remarks around their friends-but all the while want a big shemale (or male) dick in their ass or mouths. The hypocrosy is almost unbearable. The sexually repressed and disturbed. Those who can't deal with their sexuality so they socially conspire agaisnt it.

I can't- CAN"T-understand how anyone on this board, or part of any alternative lifestyle board and erotic material consumer can possibly support this party. It makes NO sense to me.

What's even more disturbing, are the ones who are independents, yet will do nothing to support a socially progressive party (compared to the other
morons).

Maybe someone can explain?

[SarahG]

"Next of kin" isn't about wills. There's no law that says you owe your immediate family anything upon your death. People can & do write their wills any way they please. Once you're dead, what do you care about probate suits?

You do have a good point there. But many of the ways next of kin can be important can be worked around using alternative legal documents. Depending on the state I could allow a bf to have access to my medical information in a crisis if my lawyer has the right waivers on file AFAIK, but- that's a lot of cost, hassle, and muddy legal water a straight couple can bypass simply by being married.

The problem comes with the binding legal contract that comes with the licence & all the regulation over individual life choices. Based on what? We're back on this "I don't like that so you can't have it!" routine. The licencing procedure gives the state too much power to abuse. We already have laws that protect children from adult coersion, so aside from that, the only stipulation should be that the choice of someone's next of kin has to be another human being in order to be recognized & recorded. Sexual practices not only shouldn't be a factor, they shouldn't even be assumed based on the gender of the principals.

I agree with you entirely here. The last line particularly, marriage is about sex as much as it is about fertility (that is to say: it isn't!). No one is gonna have their license revoked or refused simply because they are unable to have intercourse (regardless what the situation is behind that physical limitation).

[GinX]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

No, an employer who is a Democrat CANNOT fire an employee just because the employee is a Republican. A person cannot be terminated because of their association with a particular creed. Political parties qualify as creeds due to the fact that one of the definitions of creed is: "an established system of principles and/or opinions". Trying to fire someone who is of a different political party than you would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone who is of a different religion.

As to your position that the 'ages old' idea of what a marriage constitutes should not be disturbed, let me remind you it is only an 'ages old' tradition because of another ages old tradition, namely the tradition of reviling gays. Look across the history of culture and you'll find that most societies were incredibly intolerant of gays and lesbians. Hence, the 'ages old' idea of marriage was only in existence due, in part, to intolerance. However, if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to become married, this would NOT change the concept of what marriage entails, namely the permanent union between two people. It's simply that most people do not want their comfort level disturbed with such a radical idea as gay marriage...but if we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why are heterosexual marriages apparently MORE equal than gay marriages? Is it just too disturbing to people of low tolerance that two men or two women be allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage? Lemme tell ya this....

...it wasn't all that long ago that the notion that black people should be allowed to have the same jobs, same opportunities and be allowed in the same places as white people was seen as disturbing and radical...after all, there was the 'ages old' accepted idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks....but that all changed, didn't it? Sounds to me like some people are afraid of change.

[hangman]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

No, an employer who is a Democrat CANNOT fire an employee just because the employee is a Republican. A person cannot be terminated because of their association with a particular creed. Political parties qualify as creeds due to the fact that one of the definitions of creed is: "an established system of principles and/or opinions". Trying to fire someone who is of a different political party than you would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone who is of a different religion.

As to your position that the 'ages old' idea of what a marriage constitutes should not be disturbed, let me remind you it is only an 'ages old' tradition because of another ages old tradition, namely the tradition of reviling gays. Look across the history of culture and you'll find that most societies were incredibly intolerant of gays and lesbians. Hence, the 'ages old' idea of marriage was only in existence due, in part, to intolerance. However, if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to become married, this would NOT change the concept of what marriage entails, namely the permanent union between two people. It's simply that most people do not want their comfort level disturbed with such a radical idea as gay marriage...but if we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why are heterosexual marriages apparently MORE equal than gay marriages? Is it just too disturbing to people of low tolerance that two men or two women be allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage? Lemme tell ya this....

...it wasn't all that long ago that the notion that black people should be allowed to have the same jobs, same opportunities and be allowed in the same places as white people was seen as disturbing and radical...after all, there was the 'ages old' accepted idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks....but that all changed, didn't it? Sounds to me like some people are afraid of change.

I think you are wrong about an employer's right to fire an employee due the employee's political beliefs. Show me a case that says otherwise.

Based upon the rest of your comments I see that you don't know the extent of the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. Some reading should answer your questions.

[GinX]

I'm sure that some Republican's oppose gay rights

Opposition of gay rights is part of the Republican Party Platform.

You have the same exact Constitutional rights that I do, and I have no problem with that. Are you aware of that?

Neither you, nor a gay, nor a lesbian can marry someone of the same sex. I think we can do better than that.

The Republican party is against special Constitutional rights for gay people. I agree. The Constitution doesn't provide specific rights for gays. Don't worry, however, when you get more liberals on the Supreme Court, it will somehow find some.

The definition of marriage has been set for centuries. I don't think it should be changed just because some people want it to be changed. I don't have any problem with state acknowledging the right of people of the same sex from entering into a civil union or of two people voluntarily entering into a contract.

Marriage issue aside I think most GLBT people don't want special rights. They want the same rights as other people. I could not fire a person becuase they were Republican, but I could fire a person becuase they were transexual. It was the political strategists, who turned around the request for the same rights as other people, into saying they are asking for special privileges.

And speaking of special privileges, I have a small minority view, that not being able to get married is a special privilege. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.

I do not think that Federal law prohibits an employer from firing an employee because the employer disagrees with the employee's political views. Under federal law an employer is prohibited from firing someone because of their sex, religion and race, and if the firing was for retaliatory purposes. So, unless the employer's state has enacted more specific legislation, I believe that an employer that is a Democrat CAN fire an employee merely because the employee is a Republican. Of course, the employer would be responsible for abiding federal unemployment compensation laws and might also suffer a backlash in his/her community as a result of his/her actions.

No, an employer who is a Democrat CANNOT fire an employee just because the employee is a Republican. A person cannot be terminated because of their association with a particular creed. Political parties qualify as creeds due to the fact that one of the definitions of creed is: "an established system of principles and/or opinions". Trying to fire someone who is of a different political party than you would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone who is of a different religion.

As to your position that the 'ages old' idea of what a marriage constitutes should not be disturbed, let me remind you it is only an 'ages old' tradition because of another ages old tradition, namely the tradition of reviling gays. Look across the history of culture and you'll find that most societies were incredibly intolerant of gays and lesbians. Hence, the 'ages old' idea of marriage was only in existence due, in part, to intolerance. However, if gays and lesbians are legally allowed to become married, this would NOT change the concept of what marriage entails, namely the permanent union between two people. It's simply that most people do not want their comfort level disturbed with such a radical idea as gay marriage...but if we're all supposed to be equal under the law, why are heterosexual marriages apparently MORE equal than gay marriages? Is it just too disturbing to people of low tolerance that two men or two women be allowed to enter into the sanctity of marriage? Lemme tell ya this....

...it wasn't all that long ago that the notion that black people should be allowed to have the same jobs, same opportunities and be allowed in the same places as white people was seen as disturbing and radical...after all, there was the 'ages old' accepted idea that whites were inherently superior to blacks....but that all changed, didn't it? Sounds to me like some people are afraid of change.

I think you are wrong about an employer's right to fire an employee due the employee's political beliefs. Show me a case that says otherwise.

Based upon the rest of your comments I see that you don't know the extent of the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution. Some reading should answer your questions.

No reading for me is necessarry. Observe:

Most states EEOC have a list if what is called protected classes. This is the list which classifies the reasons you may NOT discriminate against someone:
* Race
* Color
* National origin
* Religion
* Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
* Disability: Physical or mental
* Age (40 and older)
* Citizenship status
* Marital status
* Sexual orientation
* Genetic information
* Gender
* AIDS/HIV
* Medical condition
* Political activities or affiliations

Notice the last one. Not every state has adopted this list of protected classes, but the states that have number in the majority. I obtained this list from the publication "The Manager's Legal Handbook", which is written by two attorneys, Lisa Guerin and Amy DelPo. Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions, I can tell I have had to attend more mandatory classes and lectures on discrimination than I care to admit. I can tell you firsthand that, no, you CANNOT fire someone simply on the basis of his or her political ties or affiliations.

It's simple pragmatism...discrimination is the singling someone out solely on the basis of his or her affiliation to a particular group. Trying to fire someone just because he is a Democrat would be exactly the same as trying to fire someone just because he is Jewish. That is the very essence of discrimination. The only possible way such a thing could happen would be if the employee willfully and purposely caused excessive disruption or damage...for example, if an employee, who, let's say works for Wal-Mart and who was a Republican locked himself in an office and started blaring out over the store's loudspeaker why no one should vote for Obama, then his excessive disruption would be grounds for termination and would not be considered discriminatory.

[vietboy]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions

I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

[GinX]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions

I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

Meaning.....what, exactly?

[hippifried]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions

I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

Meaning.....what, exactly?

I know this is off topic.

Hey GinX,
I actually like you so far, but there's something about that post, coupled with the picture, that set something off in my head. I always have truble passing up a straight line anyway, & I'm biting my tongue real hard right now. While typing this, I've formulated a comedy routine that could easily go on for 20 minutes or more, & you're the brunt. I swear it's nothing personal, & I'm really trying to be good. So if, in the future, I end up losing control, I'd like to apologize in advance.

[GinX]

Further, as someone who has worked in retail in CA for 20 years and have held several management positions

I would have guessed that you were in the antiques business.

Meaning.....what, exactly?

I know this is off topic.

Hey GinX,
I actually like you so far, but there's something about that post, coupled with the picture, that set something off in my head. I always have truble passing up a straight line anyway, & I'm biting my tongue real hard right now. While typing this, I've formulated a comedy routine that could easily go on for 20 minutes or more, & you're the brunt. I swear it's nothing personal, & I'm really trying to be good. So if, in the future, I end up losing control, I'd like to apologize in advance.

Oh, that's alright...to tell the truth, everyone who has seen that picture thinks that I'm a mortician or some in fashion have job having to deal with corpses...I've also been asked if I was at a Halloween party when that picture was taken, so knock yourself out...if ya can't laugh at yourself, who are you going to laugh at, right?