🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32375761.1097@ix.netcom.com>, Matt Steele <toc@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> David Ensign wrote:
> > 
> > In article <32362828.4338@ix.netcom.com>, Matt Steele <toc@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > Explain to me why I should have to take into consideration your sex life when hiring for a position in an
> > > engineering firm?
> > 
> > ENDA would enforce that you *may not* take into consideration someone's
> > sexual orientation in hiring or firing.  Maybe you should read the legislation
> > before commenting.  It also exempts religious organizations and prohibits any
> > sexual-orientation-based quotas.
> 
> Excuse me, but are we discussing non-discrimination of gays and lesbians in the work place? 
> Sorry, I thought we were. I would suggest that having to hire an outwardly gay person, in contrast 
> with the position requirements probably, is taking into consideration the person's sexual orientation.
> You disagree. Go figure.
> 

That's just the point.  The legislation does not say you have to hire an
outwardly gay person.  But you may not use that person's sexual orientation
as a reason not to hire them.  Big difference.  The only way what you've just
said makes sense is if the job requirements state that the applicant must
be heterosexual.  This would be illegal under ENDA.

> 
> > Where in Mike's post did you find a request for any entitlement?  You're
> > making this up.  ENDA does not legislate any entitlements whatsoever.
> 
> The legislation is designed to provide leverage to gays and lesbians in the work force 
> structure of a corporation. That is entitlement. "To give a legal right to". In this case it is 
> designed to give a legal right to a position in a corporation that may have differing corporate 
> objectives for the position.

So you define legal protections as entitlements.  This is not the common
use of the word.  You view your right not to be attacked on the street as
an entitlement, and your right to pursue legal recourse as an entitlement?
Then fine, I'm all for such entitlements.

> 
> > > As an employer, I should not have to hire anyone for any reason other than that person can do
> > > the job. Period. And as an employer, I would certainly hire the best person for the position. Period.
> > > It is in my best interest to hire *that* person, for obvious reasons.
> > 
> > As an employer you should be much better informed of the laws that might
> > affect employers.  If you want to talk about quotas or EEO policies, you're
> > targeting the wrong piece of legislation.
> 
> Sorry, you have not responded coherently to my statement, > >, above.   


I have.  You've redefined the word "entitlement" to fit your case.  How was
I supposed to know that?

> 
> > Out of respect for decency I'll cut out the rest of your rant.  It's
> > reprehensible that you feel you can label people with the ugly language
> > you used in your little dialog.  You are certainly not cut out to be
> > put in a position to employ anyone.
> 
> How dare you judge me with your morallity 8-)

Easy.

> Is that not what we always hear? What exactly did you find offensive?