ChatterBank5 mins ago
Victory For Common Sense?
137 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.AOG
If a company is allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay, how is that a level playing field?
The 'religious beliefs' excuse doesn't really stand up.
The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination - but it doesn't say anything about not employing gay people, or serving them in shops.
So anyone who has strong objections isn't really following the word it the Lord.
...because technically, if they really were, they should be campaigning to shut down every branch or Red Lobster in the state (shellfish), The Gap (mixed fabrics) and IKEA (no Bibilical connection...they're just rubbish).
If a company is allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay, how is that a level playing field?
The 'religious beliefs' excuse doesn't really stand up.
The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination - but it doesn't say anything about not employing gay people, or serving them in shops.
So anyone who has strong objections isn't really following the word it the Lord.
...because technically, if they really were, they should be campaigning to shut down every branch or Red Lobster in the state (shellfish), The Gap (mixed fabrics) and IKEA (no Bibilical connection...they're just rubbish).
-- answer removed --
divebuddy
I really don't think the opposition to the bill focussed on that specifically, especially when there were substantially more fundamental questions concerning housing, employment and legal spousal recognition. It was section six of the bill that was most contentious, because it was the one section that could be cited by businesses to get round the 'invidious discrimination' clause.
If anyone has been banging on about rest rooms, they have seriously misunderstood the bigger picture.
I really don't think the opposition to the bill focussed on that specifically, especially when there were substantially more fundamental questions concerning housing, employment and legal spousal recognition. It was section six of the bill that was most contentious, because it was the one section that could be cited by businesses to get round the 'invidious discrimination' clause.
If anyone has been banging on about rest rooms, they have seriously misunderstood the bigger picture.
-- answer removed --
The restroom/toilet issue is one that always crops up, but in ladies loos we enter a cubicle with a lock on the door - we have no way of seeing who is in the next cubicle or indeed what gender they are.
It is only late at night one is likely to see semi disrobed young woman (nightclub etc) outside of the cubicles.
It is only late at night one is likely to see semi disrobed young woman (nightclub etc) outside of the cubicles.
-- answer removed --