Feingold Storms Out of Meeting Over Gay Marriage Ban

Offensive slurrs! how rediculous! some folks should take their feelings and run them through a mill for a while. toughen up.

 

Yes, states as well.

These issues can be handled by private contract. And the courts can enforce the private contract, if need be.

 

I understand you feel that way, however the law is otherwise. The sexual harrassment laws have hostile work environment as one form. This means you cannot make unwelcome remarks about someone's appearance, orientation, or any thing else that would offend.

Now, I do know sometimes it is taken to extremes. For example, I worked at a company a few years ago that put us through annual sexual harrassment training (what is not acceptable, not how to do it) . In any case, they said it is inappropriate to enter a room of female colleages and say, "Good morning ladies", as this could be construed as "Ladies of the Evening". A bit extrememe.

But as for "fag", yep, that is just plain dumb and asking for trouble.

 

Shouldn't we be able to sue when someone calls us a religious bigot or homophobe? They are disparaging us based on religion aren't they? Isn't a professor or other person in a position of authority guilty of religious harassment when they use these negative stereotypes against us?

Just being facetious. You're right. People need to grow up and realize that exercising freedom in a way that is repulsive to other people doesn't guarantee you the right of not being offended by their reaction.

 

I understand you feel that way, however the law is otherwise. The sexual harrassment laws have hostile work environment as one form. This means you cannot make unwelcome remarks about someone's appearance, orientation, or any thing else that would offend.</font>[/QUOTE] You also cannot make unwelcome advances or look at someone in a way that is explicitly sexual... Like peaking over the stall at a guy.

I've had the same kind of classes for about 15 years now.

 

Yes, states as well.

These issues can be handled by private contract. And the courts can enforce the private contract, if need be. </font>[/QUOTE]I'd go along with that. What would you propose in the case of no contract? Would you support the idea of the state writing the rules of the implicit contract?

 

I understand you feel that way, however the law is otherwise. The sexual harrassment laws have hostile work environment as one form. This means you cannot make unwelcome remarks about someone's appearance, orientation, or any thing else that would offend.</font>[/QUOTE] You also cannot make unwelcome advances or look at someone in a way that is explicitly sexual... Like peaking over the stall at a guy. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, we totally agree about that!

Here is another example of extreme ridiculousness.

At that same company, we used to have staff meetings for all employees to attend...called "All-Hands Meetings", like all hands on deck.

Well, someone pointed out that not everyone has hands, so that could offend someone who had a claw or no hand or whatever. SO, they changed the name. The weird thing is, no one who worked there had fewer than 2 good hands.

They also had gay/lesbian/transgendered month, sponsored by the Office of Employee Diversity. We all got emails from the president of the company that if asked by a colleague to help them "come out", we were to do so and be supportive.

 

No, only my friend was disciplined.

Knowing my friend as I did at the time. I don't think it was just a casual look, look...

He was a bit outspoken, though.

 

SMM, your friend definitely should complain about the peeping tom not being disciplined as well.

 

He can ask all he wants.

Doesn't mean that he would get what he asked for...

 

Wouldn't that be covered by common law marriages?

 

Yeah but they don't have an obligation to force other people to obey God.

The benefits are not premised on their sin, but their sin is disregarded as a disqualification. Sin is sin and when you've committed one, you've committed them all.

It has a vested interest in promoting monogamy among homosexuals.

That's not even sexy...it's just weird and harrassing...ew.

 

I am not going to waste bandwidth by re-posting my entire post...

But, here's and excerpt and Time/Date...

I still love Edmond Burke's absolutely true statement...

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing..."

Either we are "Salt" in this earth or we are worth nothing but to be thrown on the dung heap...

As in fact this world's system is in the process of doing...

SMM

 

That isn't what I am proposing either. Marriage is a specific covenant/contract governing a specific relationship. Gov't isn't forcing homosexuals to do anything by recognizing the definition of that relationship.

Yes it is. If they didn't commit acts of homosexuality then they wouldn't define themselves out of marriage by that sin. They want to make the sin of engaging in a homosexual relationship a legitimate basis for being married... a relationship specifically defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Please cite the reference. Maybe you meant that you are guilty of breaking the whole law?

I agree. I believe no fault divorce laws are a terrible idea. If someone breaks the covenant they have with a spouse... there should be a stiff price like no rights to marital property and favorable custody to the offended party.

Very sickly.... that is a matter of depraved cravings.

Somehow though I am surprised that you are being so judgmental...

It's OK for two men to marry but you find it "weird" that a someone would be turned on by looking over the stall at another guy?

 

We need tostop passing laws based on what "offends" that is a very poor standard and creates a pandoras box. Not to mention its just plain silly.

 

Defined where? Suppose the homosexuals had a "chaste" marriage - that would negate the sin part, no?

I'm of two minds on this. I agree that whoever breaks the covenant should pay a stiff price, but I also think a truly loveless or abusive marriage should be endable.

To say that I find peeping at someone pooping is not sexy but a weird, gross violation of the peeped person's privacy is "so" judgmental? Consent is a major part of my standard. Whether the peeper is a man or a woman and the peeped is a man or a woman, is irrelevent.