edgecombe

So, let me point blank ask you hangs and shoulda - Should an employer be able to fire a MALE that wears a dress to work if dress code clearly states that men must wear pants/suit?

Now, for the rest of you guys PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THEIR ANSWER and think like an employer....do you see why this law might not be a bad thing?

I understand, you don't. I'm not saying that they can fire them because they are gay. I'm saying that they should be able to fire them if they are a bad employee or do not follow policy without threat of a lawsuit simply because they are gay. I think I gave the example that went over you guys head yesterday. A GUY (not a girl) decides to wear a dress to work. It's against dress code for a guy to wear a dress. Should they be able to fire him if he continues to wear a dress? Yes. They should. Now, feel free to spin it however you wish, but I made the situation I'm speaking of very clear. A GUY WEARS A DRESS - against dress code and unprofessional. Are they firing him simply because he is gay? No, they are firing him because it is against dress code for a GUY to wear a DRESS.

The workplace or public institution is not a church and should not be protected as such. You have the right to go to church and believe as you see fit. That means you can choose who you worship with. That is protected under the constitution. However those protections end in the church. Society is made up of different believes and very diverse people. That means that you must respect the rights of all no matter how different their believes are than yours. If you feel the world is morally wrong, that is why you go to church. God said for his people to be a separate people from the rest of the world.

So it's ok if an employer fires someone when they find out they are gay. You'd say thats reasonable? How about if they find out they are a Christian?

You really don't understand.

So, if you're against a place (Charlotte) making their own laws, you are basically saying that only the state has the authority to create laws. Obviously, that would have to be the case in all matters, correct?

Not to mention that if a business still wants to make special arrangements to accommodate their transgender employees then they can. They just don't have to. It would seem to a lot of us that transgenders aren't wanting EQUAL rights. They are wanting SPECIAL treatment. Being transgender isn't recognized as a disability. They should be able to function just as you or I would so they should have to follow the same rules.

Make all businesses build an additional restroom with just holes in the floor and a chalkboard so the can figure out chich sex they are and not be regulated to standing or sitting. Ad the expense to the minimum wage increase so it wont cost anybody anything. Put no doors, no signs, and a no responsibility disclaimer over the entrance, problem solved

I think it adds a bit of protection for an employer from "discrimination" lawsuits. Like I said yesterday, I can totally see things getting way out of hand quick. If you allow places like Charlotte to make their own laws you are walking a fine line. It's common sense and because people don't have common sense anymore then someone has to regulate. You don't have to like it, but it's not discrimination.

OK explain why discrimination is good. I'm waiting.

What part of the new law, and be specific, do you think is good and explain your reasons.

No, you guys just keep saying the same thing over and over and you aren't actually listening to what I'm saying. I know it isn't just about bathrooms. I'm saying that the rest of it isn't actually a bad thing.

And if you don't think it is a big deal about going to the federal court system, then you've never hired an attorney.

Now remember this bill is NOT just about the LGBT community.

This bill was rammed through (snicker) in a special session. There was going to be no compromise. Conservatives saw a way to make discrimination the law, and they jumped.

Actually mommo you aren't compromising, you are saying a flat NO. What the bill states is employees will now have to go thru the federal court system if they feel they've been discriminated against for any reason. The state has washed their hands of the situation. Please explain how that is compromising?

but hey not everyone is willing to compromise their particular beliefs. I thought the good Christians on here would agree.


Actually, I made that same point yesterday and it was overlooked. That exact reason is why this bill is a good bill. But, I think we decided that when a Christian doesn't compromise they are a discriminating bigot, but when guys want to use the girls restroom it's standing up for what you believe....or how you believe you feel....or what you think you are....or whatever.

Robin Hood was a thief.

Bruce Springsteen is well-known for his work with several charities. I believe he probably does his part. I'm sure he would be found wanting even if he gave everything he had, though, because...oh, who knows?

I wonder if the LGBT community thinks he did the right thing canceling?

I can't speak for others but I consider it the Robin Hood effect but hey, if that's where your mind is, run with it.

It's sounds as if some individuals would be happy to "whor3" themselves out for money, but hey not everyone is willing to compromise their particular beliefs. I thought the good Christians on here would agree.

The Dead sucks bad enough on their own. But a cover band? Really? Booger, I thought you were better than that.

Wow more deep thoughts with garbage people .

Here is a thought on Springsteen. How many tickets where refunded? It is not 1984 so I am saying it was cheaper to cancel the show rather than actually play it