TPMDC
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Rolls Back Non-Discrimination Protections For Gay State Workers
Virgina Gov. Bob McDonnell
Share
Send to a friend!
Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination, thanks to a little-noticed change made by new Gov. Bob McDonnell.
McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.
It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a "fair and inclusive" administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy - and sexual orientation.
McDonnell's office sent along this memo from his chief of staff that they have suggested to reporters prevents any and all discrimination. It reads, in part:
It shall be the policy of the office of the Governor to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, encourage excellence by rewarding achievement based on merit, and prohibit discrimination for any reason. Hiring, promotion, discipline and termination of employees shall be based on qualifications, performance and results.
But the LGBT trade press sees it as a "sad" development that strips state workers of protections that they had under the last administration.
Kaine declined to comment through spokesman Hari Sevugan, who said McDonnell should be "ashamed" for the new policy.
Sevugan said:
It says a lot about the Republican party that they would anoint as their 'rising star' someone who in 2010 is actually stripping away from Americans legal protections against discrimination. Bob McDonnell is proving his critics right. He said he'd focus on creating jobs, not social issues. But, one of his first acts as Governor was to make it easier for a fellow citizen to be denied a job and he did so as an adherent to a right-wing ideology that allows for such discriminatory behavior. McDonnell's decision is just plain wrong in any context, but especially so in this economic climate.
In another development, the Washington Post reported that a measure passed the Democratic-controlled state Senate that would protect state workers from discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. The bill is all-but-certain to fail in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Comments (253) | Join the Conversation!
mcc
February 17, 2010 3:27 PM
McDonnell actually promised during the campaign to do this. Virginia apparently didn't care if they elected a known extremist or not.
We need a national Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Unfortunately after some promising movement at the end of last year ENDA seems to have been quietly shelved and we are only hearing about DADT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 17, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to mcc
Homophobia is mainstream in the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
February 17, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
The question is: is it mainstream in Virginia?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to agio
It is, sadly, quite prevalent. A constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage (and possibly even any kind of civil commitments) passed handily when it was put on the ballot a few years ago.
But the good news is that, like most other places in the country, there is greater acceptance than there used to be. My sense is that it is not as great a problem in employment as it once was, but that's not to say that it's not a problem at all, and who knows what will happen once McDonnell has a chance to salt the Christianists through the state government?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyOwnPersonalBuddha
February 17, 2010 9:47 PM in reply to slb
The people who voted Deeds know this. This man is going to be dangerous for the Commonwealth. His budget cuts to account for a $4 billion deficit over the next two years was announced today. Education took a huge hit as did public health services. But he did plus up the fund for helping attract business to Virginia. Guess no one told him that the good paying jobs don't come to areas with an uneducated workforce. Who am I kidding?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 18, 2010 3:13 AM in reply to MyOwnPersonalBuddha
Actually, increasing and decreasing public school spending has very little to do with the quality of education. The majority of private schools in the US provide higher quality educations for about half the cost of a public education, even in areas where their student bodies are drawn from the underprivileged.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Waltz
February 18, 2010 9:08 AM in reply to jasonsuggs
Actually, that's misleading and not exactly true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
February 18, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to jasonsuggs
That's a total lie. A majority of the private schools provide entirely equivalent education to public schools for much higher tuition. In Catholic schools, education is distinctly crappier as few teachers are actually certified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eggroll
February 18, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to jasonsuggs
There is no basis whatsoever for your assertion. There is a very strong correlation between spending per student and quality of education. There are other things, like getting small kids to realize that getting an education is important and health, but money is king. Finland spends a lot, roughly three times the average in California, and has the high PISA results to prove the efficacy of such spending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bootspur
February 27, 2010 2:02 AM in reply to agio
Did you know Virginia's GoVerNOr little Bobby is about a half taint under four-feet-nine-inches tall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
February 17, 2010 3:41 PM
I can't believe people didn't get this. It was in his thesis and in his campaign material. Why are folks surprised that he's doing this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to calchala
Well, I certainly am not surprised, because I expected exactly this sort of thing, but do note that McConnell disavowed the positions in his thesis in part as "youthful foolishness" and also hinting (but not actually saying) that he only wrote it that way to get the degree, and not because he really believed it. It was all that independents needed to give themselves cover to vote for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to slb
Sorry, not McConnell, McDonnell. Hard to keep these guys straight, they're all formed from the same mould.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barfood
February 18, 2010 8:00 AM in reply to slb
You mean "mold".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
February 18, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Barfood
But "mould" works just as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
February 17, 2010 11:38 PM in reply to calchala
I think the surprise will come from his consitituents when they find him in a public bathroom spanking a male prostitute who's been his secret love since before he married and entered politics.
Seriously, if he's that interested in governing why has he spent that much time and energy focused on what others do in their personal relationships? How about a little more effort on issues that actually elevate and improve his once-proud state?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
February 17, 2010 3:42 PM
Oh also. This is a BIG REMINDER for folks who want Obama to issue an executive order on DADT. If you don't think it's not going to get overturned. Here's exhibit A.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
February 17, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to calchala
THIS. Now is it safe to go back to AmericaBlog?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
February 17, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
it's never safe to go back to AmericaBlog. Count me as another person who oughta be a fan, but is turned off big-time by Aravosis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to calchala
Excellent point. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
February 17, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to calchala
Wait, so what's your point? There's a double-negative in there, so the literal meaning is "If you think [the hoped-for Obama EO] is going to get overturned, here's exhibit A."
Are you saying that those of us wanting an Obama EO should give up the hope because it might be overturned? Or that we shouldn't give up because it won't be overturned (even though this case in Virginia seems to show otherwise, at the state level)?
If your point is the former, that we should take this as Exhibit A that an EO won't work because it might be overturned, then my response is two-fold: 1) I don't think bringing back a policy like DADT is going to be quite so easy as quietly removing sexual orientation from a list of protected classes and 2) if there is a risk of the EO being overturned in 2013, so what? The idea is to issue the EO now while Congress takes its sweet time crafting the law. (Why they need so much time is a different, maddening, discussion, of course.) And meanwhile, we'll have ended a horrible policy.
"The next guy might try to undo it" is never a good argument against doing what is clearly the Right Thing To Do. Don't fall into that trap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lok52
February 17, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to Boidster
What do you think the response would be from Congress if an Executive Order was issued ending DADT? You think they would would say "Time pressure is off, we can make sure this bill is right and get it done." or would "Problems solved, nothing to see here, move along!" be more likely? I know which one I think would happen, especially with the current lack of leadership.
So it would be nice for Obama to fix it with the stroke of a pen. But it is much more likely to actually stay fixed if a law is passed repealing it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to Lok52
Can Obama really overturn it with an executive order? DADT is written into the law. Obama might issue an order not to follow through with terminations based on that policy, but I would think that completely getting rid of it would require some sort of action on the part of Congress.
Fortunately, though, there would seem to be a way around having it filibustered. All that is necessary is not to include DADT when the defense appropriations bill is written. That way it requires an amendment to add it, and the amendment could be voted down by a simple majority (or filibustered, assuming that there were more than 50 votes in favor of it, but I wouldn't expect that).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
February 18, 2010 12:35 AM in reply to slb
DADT is NOT overturnable through Executive Order. The issue is well-settled law. CONGRESS now has control over the eligibility for military service - not the President.
Truman was able to segregate the armed forces through EO precisely because the current legal structure was not in place in the 1940s.
The only way to end the policy is through legislative process (or a successful SCOTUS challenge.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 17, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to Boidster
It means thousands of US soldiers who are open and out thanks to President Obama's executive order will now we thrown out of the military thanks to President Huckabee's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
February 17, 2010 3:56 PM
If a Dem president thinks gays and lesbians do not deserve the right to marry, why can't a GOP Gov think they don't deserve special protection?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
For that matter, why can't a Mayor then issue a decree that housing discrimination against gay people will be encouraged by city officials. Likewise, why can't two latent homophobic hillbillies simply beat up anyone who they think looks gay? It's in the Bible, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
notthatstupid
February 17, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Because 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Can. Shouldn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
February 17, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
(1) obama is wrong
(2) WTF? isn't the discrimination the "special" from which people should be protected? aren't anti-discrimination laws promulgated precisely to protect against such "special" treatment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
February 17, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Because that's just stupid! It's apples and oranges! If congress writes the legislation, the President would sign it. He would not veto the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
What "special protection"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 18, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Obama has his personal opinions, which are in line with his religion - but he respects hugely the separation between church and state.
He is also not lobbying for the constitution to become again a tool of bigotry and repression, as it was during times of slavery - and as Bush tried to do.
As with his preferred health care system of single payer, Obama - unlike you right wingers - understand that the president must reflect upon the opinions and values of ALL Americans - not just those of his church, his base, or any one segment or opinion.
Of course such an idea is completely alien to you.
That a president might respect the intentions of our constitution by fully understanding that his personal values and religion should have little bearing on decisions affecting millions of people, obviously goes WAY above your pretend-conservative heads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
February 17, 2010 3:58 PM
And the American Taliban is continuing to subvert more Americans liberties than any Afghan Taliban could ever dream of achieving.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
February 17, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to rbeats
a bit hyperbolic.
i don't see the american taliban cutting off body parts, or blowing up girls schools.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
February 17, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to storm
Well shooting someone in the head at a church for being a doctor, dragging someones mutilated body on a rope tied to the back of a Ford truck for being gay, and forcing woman into back alleys for abortions that realize their own death is just a few of the barbaric things the Americans Taliban do on par with the Afghan Taliban.
Want some more examples?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 17, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to rbeats
You notice how they make their stupid statements and then they are gone? Fricking reprobates!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 17, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Drive by trolls!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 17, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to storm
Oh no? How about all the doctors who were murdered by pro life extremists? That doesn't count.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chuck DC
February 17, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to storm
they do fire bomb gay bars.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 17, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to chuck DC
And abortion clinics
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to AhTrini1
And then there was that congregation in Knoxville in which a gunman killed people at a Sunday service because he thought the church was too liberal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
February 17, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to storm
No, just tying Americans to a fence in a field and beating them to death.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kernel
February 17, 2010 6:38 PM in reply to storm
They just haven't gotten to it yet. Google Christian Reconstructionism and read up.
There are plenty of sites, but this snip is from Wikipedia: "Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God's law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of idolatry[3][4][5], active homosexuals[6], adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers[7], and perhaps even recalcitrant youths[8] (see the List of capital crimes in the Bible)."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
February 17, 2010 4:03 PM
Hey you knew he was a Republican when you voted for him, if you voted for him, or you didn't vote for him, you still knew. So this should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ColinATL
February 17, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to Hank
Because even if we expect Republicans to do the wrong thing doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to call them out when they do the wrong thing. This is always true. Otherwise, how will they or anyone else know that it's the wrong thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuro
February 17, 2010 4:04 PM
This kind of stuff makes me sick. It's just wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
February 17, 2010 4:12 PM
I mailed this to all the local DC news stations.
I suggest everyone do the same if you can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 4:13 PM
ugh, just when I think my home state is making progress it elects another smiling klansman as chief executive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
February 17, 2010 4:18 PM
"You knew I was a snake when you picked me up..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spipenge
February 17, 2010 4:19 PM
When are people, like Lalo35..., going to realize that there is nothing special about not being fired because one is white or black or female or jewish? When are people going to realize that not prohibiting discrimination based upon sexual orientation means that it is legitimate to fire someone because they are straight?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spipenge
February 17, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to spipenge
Correction...it is not "special protection"...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
February 17, 2010 4:20 PM
what a turd of a fella...going backwards is the GOP/TEA Party mantra...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spipenge
February 17, 2010 4:23 PM
I just can't wait until a person is fired for being straight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 17, 2010 4:37 PM
The picture of McDonnell above looks like he's ready to be laid out in a coffin. He has that look of an embalmed person (LOL)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to lousgirl84
makes me want to smack that smirky-assed smile off his face
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 17, 2010 4:39 PM
Hey, but there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans says the usual assortment of HP/FDL/Kos nutbags.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 17, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah right!!! As frustrating as the dems can be, the worst dem is better than the best republican hands down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 17, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to lousgirl84
ditto
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 17, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Yep.
It is still and I guess will always be the single biggest dividing line in American politics. If you get up in the morning and think you are a rethuglican because they just seem so much more sensible on issues ..... you are dumb and an ass .... a dumbass. Maliciousness varies.
If you get up in the morning and say you are a Democrat because you think on balance they have better ideas on fairness and progress then at least you haven't missed the point of life completely. Congratulations!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:25 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I wouldn't go that far. I'd much prefer Lincoln Chafee to Ben Nelson any day of the week.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 17, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to FreeRider
Not always. I remember Lowell Weickert in Connecticut. He was way better than Lieberman, even then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Amen to that, too. (And wasn't it Lieberman who defeated Weiker for that Senate seat? Definitely a case that CT should have stuck with the Republican -- who went on to become an Independent, I believe.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
February 17, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to slb
Yep, and got elected governor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 17, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
C'mon folks. Lincoln Chaffee and Weickert have as much in common with the current republican party as Abraham Lincoln.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 22, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to FreeRider
Agreed. I did have to go back 20 years for my exception.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 4:45 PM
The gay community craves constant validation by requiring that nothing happens without they're getting a special mention. All the protections against discrimination are present in law and need not be reiterated by policy. Such mentions in policy matters just provides pretexts for lawsuits for those who crave their sexual status be in every headline and in every conversation. It is time to stop feeding this beast.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
maybe you just need to express your beast and you'd be a lot happier
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
February 17, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Um, what? The whole point of this post is that discrimination against sexual orientation was "present in law" until McDonnell signed this executive order.
Now it's NOT in law anymore.
I wish trolls could at least read.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
February 17, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to dal20402
Ugh... that should be "discrimination based on sexual orientation"...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to dal20402
My point is that there is no need to have a special inclusion of sexual orientation since the policy states that merit is the basis for employment. Once that is established, any other form of discrimination is against policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mark P. Kessinger
February 17, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
If merit is the basis of employment, then there is no need to enumerate sex, age, race, religion or disability either, yet those remain explicitly named in the policy. What accounts for the differing treatment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spipenge
February 17, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Riiiiight...use that one in a race discrimination or sex discrimination case. In fact, it is not illegal to fire someone for being qualified...that's not a prohibited reason and your comment shows a misunderstanding of the at-will paradigm we have in this country. The at-will paradigm says that an employer can fire someone for any reason...except the articulated prohibited (race, sex, etc.). If you want to make those classifications irrelevant, your solution would work. The problem is that that is not the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to spipenge
Ah, but you are not paying attention. The governor overrode the at-will system by making a specific policy of employment by merit alone. Thus, employment by the Virginia Commonwealth state government is no longer at-will. One may only be fire for cause based on poor performance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
then why did the executive order specifically cite race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, disabilities and veterans if it is only about merit?
you're being quite disingenuous here. you know that only sexual orientation was stripped out and you're trying to pretend that action was not hate-based but founded on some higher moral reasoning. you, sir, are a liar
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
I propose that we strip religion out of that policy statement as well. After all, it's a merit-based policy, and religious groups shouldn't expect special treatment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
I think your beginning "You know..." gives jase the bigot far too much credit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
No, he didn't bigot.
He included EVERY OTHER description, and removed gays.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
no.
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's chief of staff, not the language in the actual executive order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shutterbug-J
March 5, 2010 11:48 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
I don't think so.
Bob McDonnel worships the idea of work at will, he campaigned on it and he clearly intends to beat down any union weather they be state workers, nurses, teachers or even someone outside of anything he has legal authority over.
Seriously he campaigned that work at will would bring Virginia jobs. Now Virginia is already a work at will state so I have no idea how not changing anything was supposed to generate jobs.
He would never give up that legal weapon. When a gay state employees is fired, if there case ever works their way up to the governor for comment he's going respond with the fact that Virginia is a work at will state, the state service should be as well etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
If what you were saying were true, that that was all that was necessary to make the policy completely non-discriminatory, then there would be no need to mention any of the other categories, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:19 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
no.
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's cheif of staff, not the language in the actual executive order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
February 17, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
If you substituted "religious right" for gay you might be correct. In any event, if the policy is superfluous, why did he issue it for other groups?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to rb6
Good question. That is a matter of historical residue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
February 17, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
You're residue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
He kept the vets in there -- that was a group that Kaine had added as well. The vets are not "historic residue" any more than gays are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 18, 2010 3:22 AM in reply to slb
yes, and there should be no special protection of Vets either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
That's just pathetic, and bigoted.
Yes, my friends' desire for legislation requiring the police to investigate terrorism against the gay community, is really only them shaking their 'gayness' in our faces... RIIIIGGGHHHTT MISTER BIGOT?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 17, 2010 4:46 PM
Well Virginia is about to find out what a powerful consumer bloc that GLBT community is. Boycott Virginia tourism and Virginia produced goods to include any advertised and sold under the marketing umbrella "Virginia is for Lovers." No Virginia hams, wine, Busch gardens, or Williamsburg. As an alumni of Virginia Tech, I will be boycotting all university functions until the state enters the 21st century.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to Impishparrot
The gay community is less than 3% of the population. And not all gay people are controlled nor represented by the gay activist movement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Actually, the US Department of Health and Human Services estimates a US gay population of around 8.8 million or 2.5 to 3%
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
I wouldn't call them the definitive resource
besides, they are not counting closet cases like yourself
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 17, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Don't ignore the cross on the avatar's forehead. Jason has been brainwashed by some twisted bastard's sick idea of God's love.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 17, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Buying Power of U.S. Gays and Lesbians to Exceed $835 Billion by 2011 Not small change $$$...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 17, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Boycott's work: Beck loses 103 sponsors as his UK television broadcast runs for five days straight without any ads.
You will not be seeing our dollars and neither will your businesses, Virginia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 17, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
So do shareholder revolts: Shell overhauls executive pay in response to shareholder revolt Royal Dutch Shell has frozen the pay of its top executive directors and imposed new rules on bonuses, as it tries to appease investor anger over excessive remuneration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
December27
February 17, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Maybe so, but they have lots and lots of supportive family and friends. I'm not gay, but I will not be spending any money in Virginia as long as this is its policy.
Peace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:38 PM in reply to December27
Well, I live here, and I have to spend money here because I'm not driving to Maryland to buy groceries! But I'm not going to discourage a boycott, either, even though I know an effective boycott would be painful for all of us here. I'm tired of these little people who think they have the right to dictate how everyone else should live.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
February 17, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to Impishparrot
Good idea. As a straight, white, Christian male you can count me in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
February 17, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to Impishparrot
Why don't you boycott Georgia?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
February 17, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Is McDonnell Governor of Georgia too?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 17, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
I do. I discourage any professional affiliations from holding conventions in Georgia. I do not do business with businesses that by campaign donations, party affiliation, or rhetoric seek to deny the civil liberties to any bloc of their fellow Americans. Virginia, by location, is an extension of our nation's capital and the Beltway Bandits make a lot of money doing business with the government. The state has allowed its chief elected official to make a very bad unConstitional and unAmerican decision. Its citizens should be prepared for the coming economic repercussions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Harry Truman
February 17, 2010 4:46 PM
Gays & lesbians are not alone in this: most pro-choice and ethnic voters with a lot of reason to want strong civil rights enforcement and social welfare programs just do not go out to vote day in, day out like their lives and incomes depended on it. The tea baggers and their ilk do. Until we realize that we have to go to every single election, even for dog catcher, and elect our supporters, and if our supporters are not running at least people who will not hurt us, politics in this country will always feel a centrifugal pull to the outer reaches of the right wing universe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to Harry Truman
I am very familiar with the latino community, and have never met a Latino who would base their shopping or voting habits on the gay activist agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
you have a limited experience then, as I know a number of proud gay latinos and many others who would defend them quite vigorously
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 17, 2010 5:21 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Oh, then you mean it's OK to fire a gay person if they are an "activist"?
Or do you mean gay people should not complain if they are fired solely because of their sexual orientation? Or that they don't care if they are fired UNLESS they are "activist"?
Or is any gay person an "activist" in your definition simply by complaining that they got fired for being gay?
What if they follow their church's teaching and completely abstain from sex? Is it OK then to fire them?
You mean you don't care if someone you love (because you love gay people, right?) is fired for being who they are? Because you just think homosexual relations are a sin, not that there's anything wrong with being attracted only to people of you own sex, right?
Or do you really hate gay people just for being gay? Do you not believe that they really are NOT attracted to people of the opposite sex? You think they are lying? You say you believe them? Then just how, pray tell, are they created in God's image?
It's time for you to look inside your heart and OWN your bias. And ask yourself why. And, no, it's not good enough to say homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Because pretty every preacher who thinks like you says it's only homosexual ACTS that are a sin, not homosexual orientation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Wow, wake up. Pay attention.
An employment policy based exclusively on merit will cover all unjust hires and fires regardless of the motivation.
Thus, any person whether gay or otherwise is protected. But no one should be handed an invitation to sue based solely on irrelevant criteria.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
How utterly, gloriously naive.
Who's going to judge this 'merit' of which you speak?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
no.
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's cheif of staff, not the language in the actual executive order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to Harry Truman
Anti-Catholicism is a bigotry as sure as anti-semitism or racism or any other form of bias based stereotypes and gross generalizations. The gay community ought to understand this by now. Certainly not all Catholics are alike any more than all gay people are alike. It is the gay activist community only that enforces an unrepresentative orthodoxy hostile to independent thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
please don't throw your catholicism in my face. its very presence offends me
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
oh, and doesn't the catholic activist community -- yourself included by your in-your-face catholic avatar -- seek to enforce an unrepresentative orthodoxy hostile to independent thought?? catholics have been burning people at the stake, literally and metaphorically, for hundreds of years for anything from proclaiming the earth is round to wearing condoms to being gay
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 17, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Me too. I spent years shaking off that crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Unless something has been deleted, I don't believe anyone said anything about Catholicism until you brought it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
If your religion freely and openly engages in bigotry, then it deserves to be called out.
That's not Anti-Catholicism - it's calling hypocrisy and inhumanity.
But by all means: try and be a victim - that'll allow many more to see you for what you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 17, 2010 4:52 PM
It's GOOD for them. A lack of action in getting out their arses to vote to spite President Obama backfired on their stupid arses. They get take what they get! I have no sympathy for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to AhTrini1
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the Democratic candidate was just plain lame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 4:52 PM
If sexual orientation must be included in policy then we must also include those who are fat, short, bald, blonde, have bad breath, athlete's foot, are incontinent, etc.
Just image the lawsuits adding all those categories might invite.
Instead, we have a policy that employment is strictly a matter of merit. THAT is justice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
February 17, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Sexual Orientation cannot be altered, being fat and having athletes foot can be.
Fast actin tinactin aint gonna cure 'teh gay'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to fsudirectory
But religion is included and it can be altered, so alterable statuses can be protected. Perhaps bleached blondes would also require a special mention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
February 17, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Never heard of someone getting fired for any of those things you speak of.
You are grasping at straws to support the fact you dont care if people are fired for being homosexual as if they had control over it.
Question: Would you be ok to dropping the religious protection as it is alterable status, thus, allowing me to fire all Christians and only hire people of the Jewish faith because I think Jews are cool?
Or how about firing and denying benefits to anyone that is MARRIED because I dont want to pay for their stupid kids or wife's insurance, since, I only care if my slave (salaried exempt employee) is functioning for my purposes?
If so, I hope you pick the right religion for the job you are qualified and went to school for!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 17, 2010 8:19 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
If bleach blondes were getting fired for their hair colored, or tied to a fence and beaten to death, they'd certainly need to be protected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 17, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Oh yeah, employers fire blondes right and left after they find out they've been coloring their hair dark.
Dim bulb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Should there be ANY laws regarding discrimination in employment. For ex, for age, gender, race? Should there be any laws regarding any discrimination in anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to Rockridge
Yes, a merit system protects all employees from every kind of discrimination because they can't be fired without a demonstrated lack of proficiency. This protects not only those of different races, sexes, ages, sexual orientations but also those who might be discriminated against for ANY other reason unforeseen by the law including looks, weight, height, flatulence, dental care or your favorite color.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
This ignores the fact that it is very easy for an employer to trump up a case against any employee it chooses to. It's done all the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
a merit system is not what this executive order decreed, and you know that, you disingenuous little turd. merit was only an after thought in a memo produced for the media
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
no.
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's cheif of staff, not the language in the actual executive order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:25 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
no.
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's cheif of staff, not the language in the actual executive order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thromulese
February 17, 2010 4:59 PM
RepubliCONs are simply gay haters.
They thrive on bigotry, discrimination, racism, hypocrisy, war, torture, oil, and lies.
It is what they do.
And they are very good at it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to thromulese
Ad hominem attacks only demonstrate that the speak has no argument to make.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:11 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
that's not an ad hominem. it directly addresses the reason the gov removed the language about sexual orientation.
and why exactly is it that this issue has your panties in such a bunch? why the visceral need to dominate this thread with anti-gay remarks? are you proving to us all how "straight" you are?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
I am not anti gay. I am anti-gay establishment. I am also mostly libertarian and prefer the government not police human thought which is precisely what the gay establishment seeks to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 17, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
WHAT!!!! Then you should be shouting just as strongly against laws that prohibit discrimination based on race or religion.
You, sir, are a liar. Or a completely self-deluded homophobe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
February 17, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to Cal Gal
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Well, anti-discrimination provisions "police" actions/behavior, not thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 17, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to Rockridge
Ding! We have a winner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 18, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
TY
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
don't worry, you're latent thoughts are safe. it's your homophobic words that we're confronting
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
I'll add that I prefer that the government not subsidize the catholic church with tax-exempt status.
will you join me in this libertarian crusade?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 18, 2010 3:20 AM in reply to twirling fartknocker
I actually have no problem with the Church paying taxes as long as she can then freely and directly engage the political process. Believe me, having the Catholic Church tax exempt protects the pro-choice lobby and the pro-gay marriage lobby too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?