Actually, you can in the private sector in many states - Georgia, for example, is a fire at will state in the private sector. Note -- there are no EEO protections for gay people either.

Note - the Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting firing someone for that reason. W has not rescinded that order despite pressure to do so. This likely is the only area in gay rights that he can be praised for.

Personally, if someone only wants to hire left-handed clowns with red hair, they should be allowed to do so. If a business ONLY hires gays or crossdressers, I have no problem with that, or the converse. If a black guy doesn't want to hire white people, why not let him? Or conversely? We shouldn't force people to be enlightened. People should be as free to be as stupid and ignorant as they please. As long as the expectations are made clear from the beginning, I don't see an issue. However, once someone is hired, people should be free from harassment. I don't believe in forcing people to hire people that they don't want to hire. We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser. I have to give a drag queen the same consideration to come to work in women's clothing that I do if someone has a wheelchair, under my state's laws. That's a bit extreme. If there is a choice between two stores, where one I have to be checked out by a drag queen and another where I don't, I'm not sorry to go to the other store. I, as a consumer, shouldn't be forced into being made uncomfortable, nor should a business owner. We don't need the power of government to tell us how to run our lives or our businesses.

It happens on both sides of the isle. Each side stacks the deck in their own favor. It's just the nature of politics. I mean, Nixon wasn't any more corrupt than anyone else, he just got caught and someone like Johnson didn't. Both political sides are guilty of corruption. Since the R's were in power until 2006, their dirty laundry is coming out. Give it a few years and you'll see the same thing on the D side too. There just hasn't been enough time to become equally as corrupt, since they've only been the majority party since 2006.

Actually, I have been. I used to work for a very liberal guy and his son, who used to scream at me about the Iraq war, as if it was all my fault. My wife also worked for him and he would chew her out about what he assumed were her views, even though she actually would have agreed on some of the issues if he had bothered to listen to her. She stood up to him one day and was let go. I got left out of raises and other things, even though he said I deserved them. This same guy later on filed amended tax forms claiming I never worked for him and looted my social security. He also stuck me with one of his leases. I sued him over that one. I don't care so much about the discrimination part, I do care about his stealing the money he withheld from my paycheck. He sometimes changed my radio station to Air America when I was away from my desk. A more crude and angry station I have never heard. He used to worship idols in the office too. He was just a creepy guy. I just see no reason to go running to the government over his behavior. I chose to work for him and I chose to leave.

^^^

I honestly do not know the answer in the private sector (the govt. is a different story). On the one hand, I think the laws disallowing discrimmination in hiring practices have had a profound effect on the advancement of educating people that minorities and women could succeed in the workplace. On the other hand, those same las get abused all the time. Are they worth it? I have to conclude yes they are.

As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot.

Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?

Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:

:laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh:

Actually, here is a link to an article on it. Gender Identity is clearly addressed in the bill. "Transgendered" covers people who dress as the other sex in the legislation.

http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/?aid=1095

"Why would anyone consider this appropriate work conversation?" I don't consider it appropriate work conversation. The guy was off his rocker. He would just walk around spouting this crap.

"Well, you continue to support it ans the people who let it fester to the the point prior to the surge and really even until know. You laid the card - don't be scared to play it :shrug:" The point is that I don't talk about it at work. Why should I have to deal with my voting habits with my boss? I thought you would be on the side of privacy here. I didn't bring any of this up with this guy or his nutty son. They brought it up to me.

":laugh: So Rush and his cronies are never as crude or cruder than AA -- goive me a break :laugh" Uh, no they are not. You might listen for a week straight and you might be surprised. He mostly focuses on issues and some cheesy egomania. Occasionally, he may veer off into stories, like that guy who got killed in Enumclaw at the bestiality ranch, but everyone did when that happened . He's not crude or generally angry. Air America was a lot of angry people. Michael Savage is a different story, then again, I stopped listening to him years ago. I don't like angry or crude people on the radio.

I thought you meant a Federal Law, that is what I was talking about. I do not know different states' laws.

Did you feel compelled to respond past though the point of something like "I am not talking about this at work." If they kept at it, then they were/are a$$holes despite their political views.

Here are some of Rush's better ones,

We have affectionately named a female-to-male sex-change operation the "add-a-dick-to-me," and we have news about "add-a-dick-to-mes" today…

Democrats will “bend over, grab the ankles, and say, ‘Have your way with me’” to African American and gay voters. Limbaugh then asked why Democrats don’t say “To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base.”

:shrug:

. . . . though he likely does not remember them giving that he had thousands of OxyC tablets, but felt persecuted by the law when they busted him like a common dealer/druggie, which he was and though he openly advocated for years against people just like himself, to wit:

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

What a fukcing hypocrite :rolleyes:

Here is what you actually said, "As for your statement "We have laws in Washington preventing discrimination if someone is a cross-dresser" -- please show me that law in the private sector. i suggest you cannot." I said Washington to begin with.

He acknowledged his hypocrisy and plead out. He did what he would have expected someone else to do. He never said he didn't do it, or that he changed his views. He said he was wrong and he was wrong. He's human. Unlike Obamessiah! :angel:

I did acknowledge he occasionally gets crude. He generally is not, he has moments here and there. He occasionally gets angry. Most of the time he's just being funny. The "addadickonme" stuff is supposed to be funny. Air America is crude ALL THE TIME and angry ALL THE TIME. I mean, Al Franken threw a folding chair at Michael Medved during a debate.

I was talking about Washington as in D.C. as demonstrated by the references to W and Clinton and the EEOC. I do not think I was unclear. But, if I was, now I am pretty sure I am clear :cool:

He could have moved to Zurich and/or volunteered to serve the jail sentence he openly advocated for others just like him to serve.

And - he did not just plead that out. He used his cohorts in the media to try to save his face by acting like the state was persecuting him for being Rush L. never mind the thousands of tablets of hillbilly heroin he had. Mind you, he had to openly and knowingly violate about 100 federal and state laws regarding the distribution of controlled substances.

Defending him in any capacity on that point (much less the non sequitor bait and switch to Obama) is ridiculous.