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.
Comments (254) | Join the Conversation!
Follow us!
TPM Top News
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
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?
fsudirectory
February 17, 2010 5:05 PM
Nice billboard for all of you VA Dems that didn't go out to vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
notthatstupid
February 17, 2010 5:07 PM
How ya like him now? For all of you that were fooled by his bi-partisan happy talk and refusal to use the word "republican," I hope you realize that you are in for a real treat...extremist style.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rawresolve
February 17, 2010 5:10 PM
The American Taliban strikes again.
Why do right wingers have such contempt for freedom, liberty and justice?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to rawresolve
Actually, it is for the sake of freedom that I am opposed to special rights for any group that claims victim status in order to gain political power. I would feel the same way if Mormons or Catholics or construction workers or men with large elbows were demanding their inclusion in a non-discrimination policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bethany
February 17, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
The freedom to fire folks based on non-job related criteria isn't a freedom I want people to have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to Bethany
Nor do I. I want people to be hired solely on the basis of merit and not quotas or threats or implied threats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 7:12 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
SUCH a double standard!
The gay community live under threat right now.
And you support the continuance of that.
What I find hilarious about people like you, is that the only time we see the arguments you're making, is when directed at gays or racial minorities.
How about terrorism? Can you point me to any pages where you've argued against the use of the term?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:32 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
and still...
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's cheif of staff, and ignoring 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 10:52 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
and also:
so... you oppose the executive order???
the word 'merit' does not even appear once in the executive order.
and not only does the executive order prohibit discrimination against specific 'isolated groups', the executive order directs appointing authorites and managers to actively emphasize the hiring of these specific 'isolated groups'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
February 17, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Um, I think Catholics and Mormons are already in there. Now say you feel the same way about including people of color, and argue that this whole policy should be thrown out just as hard as you've been arguing against the "activist gay agenda," and maybe somebody here will start to believe you.
Your whole point has been how GAY people should not be included. Now you're back-pedaling. A little to late to keep your true bias under your hat, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to Cal Gal
As I have said, some of these statuses are a matter of historical residue. But, in fact, I am opposed to all forms of discrimination except by merit. The old clause is unnecessary and creates groups of people that can threaten law suits based on irrelevant statuses. Law suits should be based only on merit criteria.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 17, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
I for one agree. Worked as a fashion retail manager for 5 years. Once was accused of not hiring someone because they were homosexual. Problem was that 15% of my staff at that point was. There is a segment of any minority that given a little encouragement will threaten you with discrimination regardless of the situation. There is no need to encourage it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:35 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
and still...
you are citing the language in a memo to the media from mcdonell's cheif of staff, and ignoring the language in the actual executive order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Your use of terms "victim status" and "gain political power" are confusing; Does this apply to all laws protecting any/all classes, e.g., women, over 40s, blacks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to Rockridge
Actually, I think all non-discrimination clauses are redundant. Some are a matter now of historical residue. At the very least we should not be adding new categories of redundancy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:41 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Redundant because hiring should be on merit? Sounds fine. But what is "merit?" In my view, a good salesman has to be young; older people don't have enough energy. That's been my experience and I stand by it. You have a nice resume but you're just too old for what this job requires. That okay?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to Rockridge
Well if a person is no longer qualified, then they are no longer qualified for a particular position. If I am a truck driver and lose my license, I dont think I would merit the position any longer.
And yes, I think the age discrimination protection is problematic. But in the case you describe no one would be fired for being old per se, only for not being proficient. Some 60+ people are great salespersons. But, if they are not good at it, it is not because of their age but other attributes that they no longer merit the position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
What about not hiring someone over x age because older people tend not to make good salespeople and I don't have any info other than that belief?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
And in this case 4 years is not enough history to make the specific prohibition vs. gay/lesbian discrimination in employment residue?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to Rockridge
Note that it is apparently enough to grandfather veterans in. Gays are the only group that don't deserve grandfathering, according to this guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Castle Stance
February 17, 2010 10:13 PM in reply to slb
This is clear discrimination. I live in the south and have read several posts that try to indicate some thin film of faulty logic saying the "merit" part negates the need for "special provisions" for gays. The language Mr. McDonnell removed was simply based on it being a subject related to sex in some way, however convoluted the path to sexual acts might be to a normal person. The Christian church (as well as a lot of other types of churches) are filled with people who have been trained to hate "gay" arbitrarily. If they knew how many of the folks sitting with them in that church were gay, they'd all be letting out their emotions in more enjoyable ways. I'm straight, but I imagine that'd be the case. LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
February 17, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
So you're opposed to the McDonnell order prohibiting discrimination against caucasians, males, Christians and veterans? Please reply.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to FlownOver
Yes, I am opposed to the law or government isolating any particular groups from protects that are not afforded to all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
okay, then oppose tax-exempt special protections for the catholic church with me after you protest the inclusion of special protections for religion in the new gov's exec order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
oops, should read: "for protections not afforded to all."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
February 17, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
I want to be tax-exempt like the catholic church. either that or they lose their special protection
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Castle Stance
February 17, 2010 10:23 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
NO TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR CHURCHES!!!! What a GREAT idea!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 11:08 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
ah, so then you wouldn't be opposed to prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation... since everyone has a sexual orientation the prohibition most certainly does not isolate any particular group for protections not afforded to all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rawresolve
February 17, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
So long as "Mormons or Catholics or construction workers or men with large elbows" are not gay, they are protected. It is not "special" rights to not be discriminated against for sexual orientation. It is completely in line with the ideals of our constitution and bill of rights. The fact you consider these "special" only shows this does not effect you personally as tax paying fellow citizen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thromulese
February 17, 2010 5:21 PM
RepubliCONs are proud merchants of hate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
strictscrutiny
February 17, 2010 5:21 PM
McDonnell's order comes very close to violating the Supreme Court decision Romer.
The statute at issue there was a referendum in Colorado that eliminated gays' right to sue for discrimination. Romer held that a specific removal of rights from a group such as homosexuals violates the Equal Protection clause.
McDonnell's order is slightly different: rather than affirmatively erase gays' right to sue, it simply declines to grant gays any rights as a protected class. However, a court may find that McDonnell's order is the functional equivalent of the Romer referendum, in which case it is unconstitutional.
Are you listening, ACLU?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 5:24 PM
No surprise here. Why should anyone be surprised? He ran on such matters. But it would be nice to make an issue of it going forward, to show that there are consequences to sh*ting on minorities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
February 17, 2010 5:35 PM
This is the injustice that awaits the nation unless people rise up and realize these bigots are intent on shutting whole groups of people they dislike or don't agree with out of civilization entirely.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to jim43
Nope, in a merit system only the incompetent are unwelcome in the workplace. All others are free to aspire to success--yes, everyone including gays, Catholics, and every ethnicity and race. It is the ultimately just system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Only if it is administered justly. And the record shows that they are not always administered that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
February 17, 2010 10:50 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
so... you oppose the executive order???
the word 'merit' does not even appear once in the executive order.
and not only does the executive order prohibit discrimination against specific 'isolated groups', the executive order directs appointing authorites and managers to actively emphasize the hiring of these specific 'isolated groups'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mediator
February 17, 2010 5:49 PM
The photo of this egotistical, smirking, self-designated "Christian" apparently thinks that God needs his puny efforts to persecute gay government employees for no other reason than being gay.
There is a big surprise in his future...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 17, 2010 5:59 PM
Surprise, surprise, ...
McDonnell is a smiley face on the same old hateful policies.
Just more of the same. Bush was also a folksy persona that masked torture, corruption, wiretapping, bigotry, environmental destruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
February 17, 2010 6:00 PM
I'm glad I don't live in a saltine state! They're nothing but a bunch of womb chasers! Stay away from my womb and I'll stay far away from your penile implants! Republicans suck! I wish we did have death panels!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 17, 2010 6:05 PM
"Bob McDonnell is proving his critics right. He said he'd focus on creating jobs, not social issues. "
Yep, he's a TYPICAL LYING GOP FAKE.
Social extremists and big corps fund the GOP to do exactly as they are told:
* Deregulate business
* Big corporate giveaways
* Legislate extremist social agenda
* Force bigoted religious views on everyone else
They put on a big smile, pretend to focus on jobs and good governance, and so on. Bush was going to be a "uniter", "compassionate conservative".
If any americans are fooled by this, they are simply not paying attention, or stupid as a rock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
February 17, 2010 6:07 PM
I know it's a no-no to compare any political movement to the Nazis, but if you've read any history of Germany between the wars, there are some serious parallels between what is happening now and what was happening in Germany. This doesn't mean to say that any particular group is a direct correlation, but the anger, the fiscal instability, the trumped up religious excuses to discriminate, a weak central government. No charismatic leader has emerged, and one hopes none will.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 17, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to Powkat
Why focus on Nazis, when history is full of numerous run of the mill authoritarian regimes?
GOP's tendency towards authoritarianism seems clear by now: desire to silence critics, links to violence and extremism, opposing judicial process and constitutional rights, spying on citizens, belligerant xenophobia, even torture.
They are truly a disgrace. Someday, children will study this dark period in our nation's history. How did we sink so low?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:18 PM in reply to Powkat
uhm, you mean like Barak Obama? He was the charismatic leader that emerged to take us all away from the dangers of partisanship. Oh, and the Dems in 2008 weren't angry? And anti-religion can be as much a religion as religion itself.
The parallels I see now are to 2008, not the 1930's. The people wanted an end to George Bush. Now they want an end to Obama for many of the same reasons including extreme partisanship, unpopular wars, rampant spending and an inattention to the economy. But, the populist now oppose Obama for additional reason including cramming bills that would massively and permanently grow the federal government and ruin the economy.
the whole "worse than Hitler" thing has just got to end. It is this relentless extremism that the swing voters are telling the nation that they reject. It is not the extremes that run the country but the middle. And the middle is becoming as sick of Obama as they were of Bush. Neither extreme should force their will but work toward compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Oh, yes: the anti-Muslim and anti-gay fervor of the right wing is SO like the anti-war, anti-torture anger against the Bush admin.
Nothing LIKE 1930s Germany!
NOOOOO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiigerrick
February 17, 2010 6:13 PM
This is easy ad campaign material for the Dems to direct toward disaffected independents: Bob McDonnell - the new face of the old Republican Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr Namednil
February 17, 2010 6:17 PM
What do you expect from a guy who argued in his bible college thesis that working women were displeasing to American Jesus?
And to think, he said thanks but no thanks on Palin's offer to campaign for him because she was too extreme.
Sinclair Lewis was right.
"When fascism comes to America it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to Mr Namednil
Sinclair Lewis could have just as easily said that fascism might come draped in a rainbow flag and carrying a hammer and sickle.
These kind of statements are not arguments, offer nothing to the intellect and eventually lose their force.
As someone smart said recently, the American middle class demonstrated it was not racist in 2008 and will demonstrate that it is not statist in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr Namednil
February 17, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
False equivalency arguments are lazy and boring. Christian conservatives are the antithesis of civil rights.
As for your alarmist dreck about statism -
George W. Bush exploded the size and power of the fed govt. And don't forget, the greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of humankind happened under George W Bush.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Neither does your utterly bigoted comments.
Don't you say above that they really only want this legislation for attention and to wave their gayness in your straight face?
SUCH food for the intellect, o nauseous one!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 17, 2010 8:17 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
I'd like to know how fascism as a political ideology comes to America as communism. Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 18, 2010 3:35 AM in reply to dtOZONE
Actually, fascism and communism are both varieties of totalitarian statism. In the concrete they are actually very much alike.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 18, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Oh ACTUALLY?
Well, mister bigot, ACTUALLY, your tendency to use every 'ism' under the sun to demonize Obama - have done before he became president even - is a very obvious sign that despite many valid points you may choose to attack him on, instead, you call him name and act like children.
You make it clear you've no idea what 'fascism' and communism' actually are. To your movement, the actual meanings are irrelevant of course. They're designed to make people afraid. Very afraid. Fear is your last best hope. And it is utterly pathetic.
Glen Beck has wiped your minds clean o any interest you may have had in discussing our nation as adults, and as compatriots.
You idiots made any reasonable debate utterly impossible by calling our president a nazi, a commie, a nigger, a Kenyan, a Muslim, a one man terror cell, a terrorist lover, and America hater, and on and on - BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN.
Your arguments, and your name calling hasn't changed.
You chose not to use substance. So you only have yourselves to blame when you're not taken seriously.
Your bigotry s clear for all to see.
By trying to hide behind religion and 'equality for all' nonsense, especially after the proud bigotry you've displayed, reeks if typical, dishonest, childish crap.
In the hands of those with guns, your opinions would lead to violence akin to terrorism. From the right wing.
OH! It's already started!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 6:18 PM
I think Jasonsug is conflating anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action. They are different. There is an assumption that under laws and regs forbidding consideration of (fill in blank) in employment that merit is topped by membership in the protected class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 17, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to Rockridge
Last post should conclude with: "Not so."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to Rockridge
And I think that Rockridq is parsing issues that are essentially tied to one another.
My point is that philosophically I dont buy the way the law now handles discrimination. So, scrap it all. Whatever it takes. But, let's stop creating ever multiplying victim statuses which grant certain groups political and legal power based on irrelevant data.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
How about we stop when minorities aren't terrorized by violence, and the police don't do anything about it because they agree with the bigots?
Oh that's right - you agree with them, too...
If you truly believe the muck you write, I assume it's not just about gays - and that you;'re on neo-con blogs lecturing them on how the term terrorism is obsolete? And that all crimes are the same, regardless of the motivation and affect on certain communities?
Oh, it would be nice to live in your simple little world...
Unfortunately, I have a brain, and a conscience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:25 PM in reply to Rockridge
Well, in fact, membership in a protected class sometimes does trump merit in both hiring and firing. When a member of a protected class threatens to sue based on their status, the cost to the employer is very high, even if he has a solid case based solely on merit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dmccreary
February 17, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Our Catholic friend here apparently does not live in Virginia or understand what "at will" employment means. Which is the law of the land here in VA. You can be fired, legally, for any reason whatsoever EXCEPT where it can be shown that it was because you were a member of a "protected class". Protected class status (in this case, religious belief) under law would protect you from being fired for being Catholic. Or for being black, or female, or disabled. Or because you were not born in the USA. As with many libertarians, your world view is one of idealism, not realism. Discrimination by definition has nothing to do with merit. It has (largely) to do with things that one has no control over.. skin color, sex, sexual orientation (only science deniers will dispute that).. but also some things that are a choice... like one's religious beliefs. Surely you do not advocate the elimination of all laws against discrimination in the workplace? That would only work in a utopian society free of bigots. That will never happen. Gov. McDonnell just removed sexual orientation from the list of things one cannot be fired for without legal repurcussions. If he had removed being a Catholic from said protections what would your position be? Particularly if you lived here, and were fired for that reason alone? Would that not be discrimination, dead wrong, and hence something that you should be able to seek a legal remedy for? That's actually not that good an analogy, for your religious beliefs are clearly a choice, sexual orientation certainly is not.It's even worse to be discriminated for being gay than being Catholic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to dmccreary
These right wingers appear to know nothing of reality, except the out of context smidgens they glean from hate radio and Fox/RNC TV.
Such concepts as 'at will' work is a complete unknown to them - as is the bizarre talking point they constantly use such as: if you had ever been an employer..." - despite their obvious ignorance.
It's quite funny, though more-so it's very sad that such nonsense is very typical from the right wing these days...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Up with the scaremongering, jase!
That's how the corporations like it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 17, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to Rockridge
The mere threat of a law suit and the employers need to avoid it, can and does have a trumping effect on merit. Eliminating protected statuses removes the real and implied threats that subvert merit systems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
You've already said what you needed to say by declaring that the only motivation of the gay community is to shove their gayness in your bigoted face.
You vile inhuman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 17, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Here here!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 17, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to Moindie
to jasonsugg
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to Moindie
he's nothing more than a simplistic, cliched scaremonger spouting disproven cliche and totally inaccurate fantasies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willdabeast
February 17, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to jasonsuggs
Don't you get tired of spouting the same thing over and over again? You already have proven to us you're a catholic nutjob that's been brainwashed into hating certain groups of people from the deepest depths of your shriveled heart. Why even bother?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
raincntry
February 17, 2010 6:36 PM
The problem with jasonsugg's comments is that they are made of pure fantasy. In a perfect world sure, all decisions are based solely on merit and nothing else. That system was tried in this country and we found that men decided to pay women far less based on sex; blacks didn't get hired or rented to or allowed into businesses because they were black;
Laws like anti-discrimination laws aim to counter those ingrained behaviors. There is no need to ask what would happen if what he calls "residual" language were struck from all laws. We only need to look back 60 or so years to see what the country would look like.
The fact is these types of laws, laws that protect people from decisions based on certain immutable characteristics, attempt to level the playing field. Asserting that equality would exist without them flies in the face of both human nature and our recent history.
Saying that the existence of a law on the books that includes sexual identity as a characteristic that cannot be used in decision making somehow encourages litigation is as ludicrous as saying laws against rape encourage rape.
But that's the point. To the Right Wing, and I think we can safely place Mr. Sugg's in that category, the 1950's were the salad days. Back then women's work was in the kitchen, blacks and other minorities were kept out of sight, gays lived fully in the closet, and white men ran the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 17, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to raincntry
If you have ever been in a position that involved the hiring and terminating of employees, you would soon realize that a segement of any "protected status" feels that they are entilted to a job just because of that. I was accused several times of discrimination, records of who I employed and how they were promoted and or dismissed proved everytime that it wasn't the case. All they knew is that they didn't get the job, or were let go because of there "protected status", not becaused they were consistantly late, disrepectful of leadership, or performing below the minimum performance standards!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 17, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to Moindie
or they were not the most qualified person for the position!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to Moindie
right wing fantasy.
Feed the fear: that's what the bigots love to see!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 17, 2010 7:49 PM in reply to Moindie
So you are saying that because some subset of a protected group either will take advantage of that status, or will not understand the true reason they were let go/not hired, that justifies subjecting all other potential members of that group to potential discrimination without recourse?
All people aren't angels. That's the reason we have these laws in the first place, because employers are not all angels. In fact, pretty much none of them were in the 1950s. Yes, there will be employees who try to take unfair advantage of non-discrimination laws. But at least employers have recourse: if you document what you have done and keep good records, you should be able to make your case in court. Without non-discrimination laws, employees have no case to make.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jasonsuggs
February 18, 2010 3:16 AM in reply to slb
Of course they will have recourse. In a merit system everyone has recourse based on merit, not on being in a privileged class. Even people with funny noses are protected as long as they do their job well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to Moindie
Your argument is entirely about perception.
Certainly not reality.
The basis of your argument seems as though you actually believe that there is no such thing as discrimination against homosexuals today.
If so, then you're either ignorant, or a willful bigot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
February 17, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to Moindie
"Entitled to a job?" You mean like the Wall Street CEOs who the taxpayers bailed out? That kind of entitlement? Entitled to butt-f*ck the world economy and walk away wealthier and still employed? Oh, these people are the 'captains of industry and finance' so the rules the rest of us folk must live by do not apply to these leeches?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 17, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to raincntry
... and remember, Jases' pal Anne Coulter wants to repeal the right of women to vote!
THERE'S a 'special interest' group that should never have been protected from bigotry!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael Maiello
February 17, 2010 6:44 PM
Bigot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmccoy
February 17, 2010 6:48 PM
Class act, Bob. But you'd never put your political career ahead of anyone else's civil rights, would you? Shame on any southerner (and I'm one) for carrying on such a dreadful tradition. Truly disgraceful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
February 17, 2010 8:21 PM
Virginia knew the record of this homophobe. So did that disgraceful con artist Sheila Johnson who supported his candidacy. I guess anti-gay discrimination doesn't matter. It's really telling isn't it that one of the first things this bigot did was to remove protection against anti-gay discrimination in the state of Virginia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 17, 2010 8:39 PM
DADT is alive and well in Virginia.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tmbo
February 17, 2010 9:04 PM
Why am I not hearing from the log cabin republicans that voted for him? You get what you deserve if you voted for this fool. Good luck down there! Oh Canada, Oh Canada...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
February 17, 2010 9:11 PM
This guy is so straight laced, he is bound to have pictures of him and young boys stashed somewhere. Lets hope they surface soon!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tmbo
February 17, 2010 9:16 PM
I think it's time to form two new countries.
Every state can vote on which direction they would prefer and then we can split it up. But I wouldn't weep to see any state below the MD line become something other than America. Good riddance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
February 17, 2010 10:44 PM
I hope this serves as a wake-up call to those considering sitting out the mid-term elections. Republican-lite is still Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 18, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to happycozy
It's an old story, isn't it. We continue to ignore policy implications and vote personality, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jabier
February 18, 2010 1:36 AM
Sanctimonious bastard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
regular_joe
February 18, 2010 8:40 AM
Virginia elected a wingnut as their governor. This is the kind of thing that wingnuts do. Is anyone surprised?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OIFVet@USC
February 18, 2010 9:51 AM
Good for Governor McDonnell and the people of Virginia. Why would gay and lesbian state employees be accorded separate and special status from other state employees just because they are gay and lesbian? The governor’s actions are supported by the overwhelming majority of Virginians. Even Californians drew the line and said enough was enough. Don't even try to equate being gay and lesbian as some sort of civil right on par with race and gender. You won't get very far with that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 18, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to OIFVet@USC
CA voters amended the constitution to define marriage. They did not remove anti-discrimination protections of gay and lesbian state workers. And why not equate with race and gender? Because the number of identified homosexuals is low? Look in your mind. What do you see when you think "homosexual?" See? That image is why you don't see us as people deserving equal rights.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael D.
February 18, 2010 12:18 PM
Obama is a member of the Christian community that sees God's opinion, that homosexuality is an abomination. The black Christian community that helped voted him in office thinks likewise as evidenced by proposition 8. Until this evangelical view of religion is addressed head on I believe all concerns stated on this blog becomes mute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 18, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to Michael D.
Come on. Some Christians follow the abomination thing; others don't. Episcopal US gay bishop, for example. Obama is not a theocrat. He may personally believe homosexuality is wrong morally or biblically, but that does not mean that he will act on those beliefs as president. That's one of O's great strengths and GWB's great weaknesses, or abominations. Quitcher stereotyping!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael D.
February 18, 2010 12:24 PM
Blacks do not see this as a civil rights issue. Why? I would think blacks could see the connection. Are blacks blinded by God? Blind faith, blinds period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OIFVet@USC
February 18, 2010 1:00 PM
It is "not" a civil rights issue. To say that it is is to accept gay marriages and the adoption of children by gay couples. The majority of Americans don't accept this and for good reason; because it is wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 18, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to OIFVet@USC
It's not wrong. That's where these kinds of arguments wind up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
February 18, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to OIFVet@USC
That is just pathetic.
The majority of Americans disagree with you.
Though I'm sure what YOU mean by "The majority of Americans", is the 3 million or so people watching Fox so much that they require glasses just to reduce the feeling that the world is contained within a 16X9 rectangle.
As for your poppycock that it's not a civil right's issue: well, you alkso thought that when the women wanted the right tovote, the sanem with blacks.
Your argument does not change over time. What does change however, is the humanity of Americans. After 8 years of trying to demonize gays, and de-humanize Muslims, America is beginning to understand again that we live in a world where all human beings ARE all human beings - and are all of equal value. Such a revolutionary concept!
But I do realize that such basic, humanity-first sentiment is still incredibly hard to grasp for many Bushies.
Maybe you could all grab a man-o-war and sink yourselves at one of the melting ice caps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
innocence is a lie
February 18, 2010 6:56 PM
Wedge issues at their finest. The rich survive off the labors of you wage slaves because you refuse to stop fighting over the scraps and recognize that there's a feast being served in mansions of your masters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
R.Roy
February 18, 2010 11:15 PM
About the attacks on Jasonsuggs:
Some people (like me) are really trying to understand both sides of these arguments. I like to read the comment sections after online articles but it ALWAYS ends up the same. A conservative or Republican or Right-leaning person weighs in calmly with an argument and is immediately personally attacked by liberals. It reminds me of a caterpillar who has just kind of wandered onto a fire ant bed. Jasonsuggs presented his argument without personal attacks or profanity over and over again and for that the following things were said about him:
Bigot, needs to express his beast, liar, Jase the bigot, troll, residue, Mr. Bigot, The Lady, RepubliCON (this may have been aimed at McDonnell), Self-deluded, homophobe, simplistic, clichéd scare-monger, Catholic nut job.
I am sure I didn't get them all. I never saw him call any of you anything. Consider this while you call him a bigot......perhaps he feels like these laws are redundant because he actually is NOT a bigot and doesn't see the world that way. I'm not saying he is right or wrong I am just saying it is childish for you people who probably consider yourselves very educated and such great thinkers to use such insults. You should all go back and read how hateful your rebuttals to his arguments are. Why can't (most) liberals argue without throwing out personal attacks? It makes them look like the bigots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
L'Chaim
February 19, 2010 9:35 AM
"In Catholic schools, education is distinctly crappier as few teachers are actually certified."
In light of all the studies, surveys, polls, statistical compilations, etc., that have revealed the excellence of Catholic education on a number of levels, it's really amazing to see someone attempting to make the claim set forth above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zman76
February 19, 2010 1:02 PM
It's nothing really but semantics that people are upset about. We all have to be either a man or woman, we all are part of some religion, or ethnic group, etc, so the phrase "sexual orientation" is more overkill than anything as everyone is already included in the "protected classes" in the bill. Maybe we should write in something about no discrimination for people with freckles or for people who have blonde hair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
February 19, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to zman76
@zman76- So how about stopping the smugness and please feel free to elaborate on the cases where people have been routinely discriminated against because of freckles or blond hair. It's really not about "semantics" at all. It's about real people who are fed up with being treated like second class citizens and having their rights constantly put to the ballot box every election cycle because some cheap shot political/religious opportunist wants to get him or herself elected and/or further their right-wing agenda. If you are going to support hate at least be honest about it instead of fancy-prancing around with absurd comparisons like freckles and blond hair......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
February 19, 2010 2:50 PM
@ R. Roy- Please stop being as disingenuous as the one you defend. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible while proclaiming you "are really trying to 'understand' both sides of these arguments." The individual you seek to defend was the very one who introduced the words "residue", "Catholic", and "beast" into the conversation. You have not lived up to your own standards having used the words, "childish", "fire ant bed", "liberals" to rebut those with whom you disagree. When he uses the phrase, "Believe me, having the Catholic Church tax exempt protects the pro-choice lobby and the pro-gay marriage lobby too" that pretty much sums up his political views and underlying motives for continuing down his redundant path. Further, his claim, "Nope, in a merit system only the incompetent are unwelcome in the workplace" in a perfect world might well apply but we do not live in a perfect world so therefore it is a very naive statement. Lastly, his statement, "And yes, I think the age discrimination protection is problematic" clearly demonstrates he finds it quite okay to discriminate. One cannot simply propose to disregard human nature and assume that will protect people from discrimination. That is a no answer answer.
The Constitution protects the right to free speech and expression. His, yours, mine, everyone's. People have a right to call out those who either live in a non-existent utopia of the mind where there is no discrimination and/or thinly veil their bigotry with libertarian and religious jargon and concepts in an attempt to justify their unjustifiable positions. How they choose to say it is also their right. Unless one has actually experienced the pain of discrimination (and I have in the workplace, in school, and in housing because I am a gay American) it is very easy to conveniently ignore facts and act like the elephant is not in the room. I actually had a boss who once told me I had no protections, as a gay man, under the law. Most rational individuals deal in the real world and understand the injustices that exist and support the remedy of corrective action that the law and courts can provide. No plan will ever be perfect and yes the current system is open to potential abuse but that does not justify do nothing. Nor does it justify defending those who propose doing nothing whether or not you are just, ".... really trying to understand both sides of these arguments" or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
R.Roy
February 20, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to Forrest
Um, I don't think my use of "fire ant bed", "liberals" and "childish" are quite the caliber of Twirling Fartknocker calling him a "closet case" and saying he needs to "feed his beast". Or that of DudeGuy calling him "residue" and Wildabeast calling him a "Catholic Nutjob". True he did use the words "historical residue", "stop feeding this beast" and "Catholic" first but they were then used against him in CHILDISH insults which I think weakens a person's position. But whatever, maybe you are right. I guess I should thank you for setting me straight about what I was really doing. Defending the indefensible. Here I have been thinking all these years that there is more than one way to look at things. But clearly there is only Forrest's way. For the record I don't believe it is okay to remove the gay part but leave the rest intact. It should all go or all stay in my opinion and perhaps I misread everything he was saying but I think he was saying it should all go (not just the sexual orientation part although, yes, that IS how he started out). Someone else on here mentioned that we need only look back 60 years to see what this country would look like if we didn't have these laws. Well I like to think we have come a long way in 60 years. I guess you don't. Rayn Sorba was booed off the stage at CPAC which wouldn't have happened 60 years ago. George W. appointed the first black sec. of state and the first black female sec. of state and now we have a black president so I would say things have changed in that area. I get what you are saying about human nature and this is why I also understand the arguments for keeping it all in place until there is a better idea or until we can trust employers to behave themselves. My point really was the hypocrisy of people here who are extremely concerned about discrimination calling another person a bunch of derogatory names. You Forrest are defending the indefensible on that one with your free speech umbrella. Of course we can say whatever we want. You're just defending people being rude. And you agree with them so it's okay with you. Go ahead and rip me again and tell me what I am really thinking and feeling. You seem to know me better than I know myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael D.
February 19, 2010 8:04 PM
Rockridge, I would love to quit stereotyping. Unfortunately people keep living up to their stereotype. Obama is not doing anything to end discrimination of gays. He wont say why he doesnt believe in gay marriage but he is Christian and says he is pretty strong on it. I never said all Christians believe the bible literaly, but all to many do. This is the reason for proposition 8. This is proof of the problem. The Christian right make no bones about this. The left just keeps it in the closet.Either way the root of their bigotry is almost always related to the religious immorality theory. Atheists usually have no problem morally with homosexuality. There just is no secular logic to the discrimination. The reasons stated on this site are very week and I would wager these people are really just religious bigots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ArgotMay
February 19, 2010 8:24 PM
I am not a local, so I can't add anything from that perspective.
I wonder if it's mostly the old folks (esp. white), who vote with/for guys like this.
I hope my bet is right- that it is old folks. I would bet that each year as they die off- that the votes will turn the other way.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and some other similar places cannot afford to be so archaic in these changing times.
Am I way off? Hope not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael D.
February 20, 2010 11:08 AM
I don't vote with or like these ignorant people! There were polls taken during the prop 8 vote and the concensus was that black voters that came out for Obama voted against prop. 8 because of religious reasons! Go and ask you black friend and see what he thinks.Blacks are very evangelical in a leftist way. This is not a stereotype, but a fact that I wish to see ended soon.End the evangelical not the leftist.Evangelical means literal reading of the bible. Laviticus said God said 'for man to lie with man as man would lie with a woman is an abomination'. Evangelicals believe if the bible said god said something there can be NO debate. God said it, nuff said. Someone needs to send out a memo to these ignorant people that the bible is full of mistakes and contradictions and should not be looked at as if a perfect word of god!
Yes old people also vote this way but if you think they are all going to die soon and this insanity will all be over is just wishful thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael D.
February 20, 2010 11:31 AM
The south and mid-west have enough power to keep these evangelical minded politicians in power,thus making the law for the nation. Yes states can make some rules but the supreme court makes some big rules that states cannot change. The evangelicals have the majority in the court for now.Just read some of what Justice Anthony Scalia has said about church and state and fear should be your reaction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uncommonsense
February 22, 2010 10:16 PM
The attached memo is telling. Employees will be hired, promoted,evaluated
etc based on professional merits (to paraphrase). What is wrong with that?
If the people want equal opportunity, I do not see why this is a problem.
According to the American Psychological Association sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.
Do people honestly think that this new governor's administration is going
to discriminate?
Look at the wording from the APA above and the wording of McDonnell's
documents. I do not see him raising a rainbow flag, but I also do not see
some witch hunt on people of a certain sexual orientation.
Why the outrage?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 5, 2010 9:35 PM
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!
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jibran_pcc
July 15, 2010 3:53 AM
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.domain names
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jibran_pcc
July 19, 2010 3:06 AM
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.Cheap Hotels
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jibran_pcc
July 20, 2010 6:25 AM
man to lie with man as man would lie with a woman is an abomination'. Evangelicals believe if the bible said god said something there can be NO debate. God said it, nuff said. Someone needs to send out a memo to these ignorant people that the bible is full of mistakes and contradictions and should not be looked at as if a perfect word of god!
Yes old people also vote this way but if you think they are all going to die soon and this insanity will all be over is just wishful thinking.
seo marketing
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jibran_pcc
July 25, 2010 6:32 AM
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.London Hotels
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
January 11, 2011 6:27 AM
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
Criminal Defense Lawyer New York
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?