🚀 go-pugleaf

Mr. Mills,

Mr. Anderson mearly states that engaging in illegal activity is grounds for dismissal. 
Period. Sorry you cannot respond with as much intelligence.

You seem to believe that passing legislation to "protect" gays and lesbians is the only 
way to dispose of discriminatory behavior. I say you can not do it. I.e., you will not 
legislate morality. In fact, you survive in defiance of legislated morality, thereby 
proving my point. And, if you think that your outward appearance, speech and behavior 
is your choice when working at a job site, think again. The job site is not your own, and 
we meet there under socially defined rules of engagement for a specific purpose. Period.

The last thing I want to experience at work is some rapper with dread locks doing the 
"we gonna get some bitches and have a scene..." in the coffee room. Likewise, I do not expect
to see Billy-Gene-Bob bragging about the last time he went to TJ and got laid, repleat 
with explicit sound effects and four-letter exlamations. So if Gay-Jim walks into the room and
insists on acting out the lead role of a character from "Sheila (?), Queen of the Desert", 
I'm likewise going to puke.

When you interview, a number of physical and mental clues are given to the interviewer.
Body language, tone and pitch of voice, hand movements, eye movements, language used, etc.
all create an image of that person (no, not necessarily an accurate image). When your image
causes me to decide that you are not the employee I want to work with, you do not get the job.
Whether or not the image is politically correct or not is unimportant, as it just depends on 
the position and my knowledge of who the position will interface with, etc. If I find dreadlocks 
on a marketing rep in contrast with the position requirements, for any reason, then the natty-headed 
person does not get the job. Period. You beleive that you have the right to behave and look any way 
that you want to in my place of work, and that you are ENTITLED to the position regardless of
the company's requirement for the position. (BTW, *how* I determine that requirement is immaterial).

How long before an employer is forced to hire his quota of people who insist on not bathing, or who use 
sexually explicit language at every opportunity, just because they cried long enough in the ears the weak 
politicians? "Oh, but we are getting fired for being ourselves...!!!" Get real. You get fired for not doing 
your job, or not being able to adjust to the corporate requirements for dress code or offensive behavior, etc.

You have no rights, nor do any of us, that allow you to buck the corporate expectations for the position.
If they want you to play straight, that's what you do. If they want me to wear a tie, that's what I do.

Get real. We all live "in our closets" at work. Gay or otherwise. Stop crying about it, and get on with life.



Mike Mills wrote:
> 
> Mr. Anderson:
> 
>      It's obvious from your post that you think an employer should be able
> to fire people because they are gay or lesbian.  You are an admitted
> bigot. That's fine.  I wasn't talking to you.  I was talking to the closet
> bigots who were pretending that they can be against ENDA without being for
> discrimination.  Their arguments were inconsistent.  I was merely showing
> them that their motivations were as bigoted as those of someone like you.
> 
>      And before you get too high on YOUR soapbox about sodomy, remeber
> that it hasn't been illegal for me to sodomize you right here in Boulder,
> Colorado for decades, provided you consent and are over 15.  So it seems
> it would be YOU who would have to change the laws.  Oh, and good luck!
> 
>                          ////
>      mike               (. .)
>   -------------------o00-(_)-00o---------------------------------------------