In response to:

DOJ on ‘Gays’: ‘Silence Will be Interpreted as Disapproval’

Tinsldr2 Wrote: May 20, 2013 1:56 PM
Well as a believer in Individual FREEDOM, I fully support this particular DOJ memo. Of all the things the DOJ is doing wrong why does the author focus on this? You have a right to voice your opinion. You do not have a right to work for the DOJ. If as a supervisor you do not follow the DOJ personnel programs you do not need a job there plain and simple . People should not tolerate bigotry or bias in the workplace. Whether it is religious, ethnic, gender based or sexual. It detracts from the professional workplace. Dont like it? You are FREE to work elsewhere! The DOJ is doing a LOT wrong in the news, this is not it however.
howard194 Wrote: May 20, 2013 4:06 PM
the article outlines how these DOJ policies limit freedoms of some groups... your post makes no logical sense.

why not just be honest and post that you think it's ok to deny some people their freedoms while making special rights for only some?
rwilco Wrote: May 20, 2013 3:42 PM
Sounds to me like you are one of the sicko butt humping/licking homos.
Earl29 Wrote: May 20, 2013 2:17 PM
How about the right NOT to voice your opinion, Tinsldr? That's what the column is about.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: May 20, 2013 2:59 PM
Earl, you dont want to voice your opinion then don't. But when employed as a SUPERVISOR by a company, you are a representative of that company. And it is your job, while at work to represent the views of the organization for which you work when dealing with your employees.

If your conscious does not allow it, get a job elsewhere where your conscious can be freely expressed. The Gov, is not an employment agency, no matter what big gov lovers like concealed carry above claim,

You follow their policies while at work or get another job.
Earl29 Wrote: May 20, 2013 6:17 PM
I understand. If I don't want to say grace in the lunchroom, I can just go elsewhere.
ConcealedCarry Wrote: May 20, 2013 2:04 PM
"You have a right to voice your opinion. You do not have a right to work for the DOJ. If as a supervisor you do not follow the DOJ personnel programs you do not need a job there plain and simple ."

THANK YOU, Tinsldr2! You just exposed yourself as an intolerant and ignorant bigot.

Listen (that means "read as slowly as necessary for comprehension"), you little bigot, the DOJ is a government agency. That means that the DOJ does not have the right to refuse employment to anyone.

You leftist totalitarians think that you can flaunt the Constitution because you're "better" than the rest of us. Think again, little girl.
Stan306 Wrote: May 20, 2013 2:11 PM
Homosexuality does not equate to a protected class... and it should not.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: May 20, 2013 2:55 PM
Concealed Carry you just exposed yourself as a big Gov Liberal, thank you very much.

You do not have a right to employment ANYWHERE.

Now read very slowly, I never said the DOJ has a right to refuse employment, if you dont, as an employee, follow the company policy while at work , you dont have a right to work there. A JOB is not a right.

Only a big gov leftist like you would think A job is a right.

Now go study Natural law and what is a right before you cry again.
ConcealedCarry Wrote: May 20, 2013 3:22 PM
Listen, young lady, I probably possess more knowledge of natural law in one corner of my vast brain than you possess in the entirety of all subjects within your limited knowledge.

You say this is no big deal, but we're talking about the government telling citizens that in order for them to work at DOJ they have to ENDORSE the LGBT agenda ("silence will be interpreted as disapproval").

Zip up, Tinsldr2, your small mind is showing.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: May 20, 2013 3:38 PM
Wrong again since natural law says you do not have a right to work.

Plain and simple. It is not a right. If you want to work you have to follow the policy of the employer while at work..

That is all this about.

The policy is to make sure that your work place environment is tolerant of all US citizens that work there and inclusive of them in all activities such as inviting them and their spouses, significant others, etc to unit social functions. It also says you must show, while at work that you do not have bigotry toward anyones orientation, just like you can not display bigotry toward a a religion.

Now you can engage in name calling all you want, because like a lib that relies on big gov, you are not intelligent enough to do otherwise.

But the fact remains, a job is not a right.
WestTexan Wrote: May 20, 2013 3:56 PM
Well said. DISCRIMINATION is illegal by any public entity, not by private citizens (I have a problem with believing in free association).
Anominus Wrote: May 20, 2013 4:00 PM
"Now read very slowly, I never said the DOJ has a right to refuse employment, if you dont, as an employee, follow the company policy while at work , you dont have a right to work there. A JOB is not a right."

So when the pendulum swings back again, and conservatives take over, you are saying they would be perfectly justified to immediately terminate all homosexuals and their sympathizers from the DOJ if that were to become "policy"? Thank you for proving that you are an irrational nut, as usual, Tin.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: May 20, 2013 5:52 PM
Anonimus,

Another poster that creates an illogical strawman as an argument, and then claims to be the logical one.

It is Illegal (read the Supreme Court decision in the Romer case among others) to deny employment based on sexual orientation. To do so would be ruled discrimination by any rational judge and would be absolutely unconstitutional.

So if a policy is to Discriminate then it wont be a legal policy. But a policy not to discriminate, regardless of your personal beliefs, is Constitutional so if an employee does not like it they can leave or follow the policy while at work.
Anominus Wrote: May 20, 2013 6:16 PM
Romer itself is an illegal ruling on the part of the Supreme Court as it has no basis in the Constitution for declaring sexual preference, or any other behavior, to be a legally protected status. Additionally, Romer was in violation of stare decisis as it was a direct contradiction of the court's prior ruling (Bowers). We've been through this before, and you failed miserably then, too. The best part of it is that Romer was considerered to have "paved the way" for Lawrence. This makes perfect sense when one understands the inherent and blatant disregard for the law as evidenced by homosexuals and their liberal enablers.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: May 20, 2013 7:37 PM
The court was right in both Romer and Lawrence. Just as it was right in overturning the Stare Decis of Plessy v Ferguson

Anominus Wrote: May 20, 2013 7:57 PM
The court was wrong in Romer as it had no Constitutional basis and directly violated stare decisis. As Romer was considered to have paved the way for Lawrence, Lawrence had no legal foundation either. Romer and Lawrence are nothing but proof that liberals have nothing but disdain for the Constitution and are perfectly willing to violate existing law in order to create their own laws.