🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>> "ms1" == Matt Steele <toc@ix.netcom.com>
>>> "de" == David Ensign <dave5@advtech.uswest.com>
>>> "ms2" == Matt Steele <toc@ix.netcom.com>

ms1> Explain to me why I should have to take into consideration your
ms1> sex life when hiring for a position in an engineering firm?

de> ENDA would enforce that you *may not* take into consideration
de> someone's sexual orientation in hiring or firing.  Maybe you should
de> read the legislation before commenting.  It also exempts religious
de> organizations and prohibits any sexual-orientation-based quotas.

ms2> Excuse me, but are we discussing non-discrimination of gays and
ms2> lesbians in the work place?  Sorry, I thought we were. I would suggest
ms2> that having to hire an outwardly gay person, in contrast with the
                                                  ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^
ms2> position requirements [...]
     ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who said anything about ignoring position requirements?  Please follow
David's advice and READ the text of the legislation before commenting
further.  The idea behind the legislation is to prohibit any
consideration of a job candidate's sexual orientation, not to give
entitlements to people of any particular orientation.

Incidentally, the text(s) of ENDA may be found at the HRC web site:
  Senate version:
    http://www.hrcusa.org/issues/workplac/enda/senate.txt
  House version:
    http://www.hrcusa.org/issues/workplac/enda/house.txt

de> Where in Mike's post did you find a request for any entitlement?
de> You're making this up.  ENDA does not legislate any entitlements
de> whatsoever.

ms2> The legislation is designed [...] to give [gays and lesbians] a
ms2> legal right to a position in a corporation that may have
ms2> differing corporate objectives for the position.

Are we talking about the same bill?  I'd be interested if you could
find a clause in the bill that says what you think it says.

ms1> As an employer, I should not have to hire anyone for any reason
ms1> other than that person can do the job. Period. And as an
ms1> employer, I would certainly hire the best person for the
ms1> position. Period.  It is in my best interest to hire *that*
ms1> person, for obvious reasons.

Nothing in ENDA contradicts this statement.  In fact, here's the
central part of the bill:

    SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.

    A covered entity, in connection with employment or employment
    opportunities, shall not--
	    (1) subject an individual to a different standard or different
    treatment on the basis of sexual orientation;
	    (2) discriminate against an individual based on the sexual
    orientation of a person with whom such individual is believed to
    associate or to have associated; or
	    (3) otherwise discriminate against an individual on the basis
    of sexual orientation.

What's preferential about NOT subjecting someone to different
treatment on the basis of sexual orientation?  I'd be interested to
hear an explanation of your opposition to the bill in light of its
actual text.


- --
John Doppke <doppke@cs.colorado.edu>

Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMjg2XqZemKxwrStZAQF0GwP/VKr4GN3BFGEBDMTJnKCm9LUJXQOuCT3g
PBV/vIG3mTVFQpCm99AkgOHnQYy8a2zKLgHtnX/oxHVSv0V5D3iIvlbBcrEQyo5b
5P/ERyWKsunUHDOXPOhpZzdPSDjia5BDoy/DHX+N04j4oSR1x0o0sVLie5ZKLo/k
adXK14SSxvY=
=tC5k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----