Bush Admin Rules It's Okay to Be Fired If Gay

[ksmybuttons]

Here we go! How closely do we need to watch this Administration?

Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay
By News Report
Mar 24, 2004, 13:06

March 20, 2004-Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights"[1] as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay."[2] While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.[3]

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation."[4]

Ooops. Missed giving you the link for your own self research:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5859.shtml

 

[John Doe]

And you're surprised? This is what happens when you elect a conservative President.

 

[Cigan]

No I'm sorry Regan was conservative, Bush Sr. was conservative. Bush Jr. is a flaming example of right wing idiocy. Conservative doesn't even begin to do him justice.

 

[John Doe]

...right wing idiocy...

I thought that WAS Conservative?

 

[Wulf7]

Bah what a steaming load but sadly I'm not that surprised knowing this administration. I could see it if someone was a security risk though I don't think it would be that big of a deal in today's society unless if involved adultery/cheating or something that could be used as blackmail (which of course doesn't just apply to gay people).

 

[College_geek]

He must think that all homosexuals are terrorists or something. That man is so blind to the world. He's been living in his own personal bubble for too long.

 

[Az_You_Wish]

I'm no fan of bush .. but I've see this article floating through the net on several different sites and honestly I don't know if this is a true article or not, I've seen a lot of ppl, even ppl who are anti bush say that this article is a bunch of shit ~ just something to piss ppl off. And .. it's working! lol

Also ~ if you think about it .. Bush may be anti gay .. but I don't think he's completley stupid .. If he were to support (openly) something like this he'd be burried alive & it'd ruin him in sooo many ways, while he may be a complete fanatic, I do think that he also knows what he's doing in so much with keeping his butt where he wants it.

*shrugs*

Granted if it is true ~ it's disgusting and I hope this really allows ppl to see how down right insane he is & in doing so, getting him out of office as soon as possible.

I guess I just don't trust most of what I read, especially since having just had a very real dose of what the media is really like and what their reality is and what true reality is.

 

[south_florida_bicur]

I hate Bush (ooops, let me clearify that I am referring to President Bush) but I do not believe in this story.

If it is against law to ask someone if they are married in an interview then I am sure it is against he law to fire someone due to their sexual preference.

 

[Angel_Diva]

I'm glad that we don't have presidents... and that if a bill has to be passed or something like this, it has to go thru a whole lots of bullshit.

But yeah, that adminstration is totally fucked up. I already disliked bush, and now I'm going to dislike him even more, oh well. *shrugs*

 

[College_geek]

I'm no fan of bush .. but I've see this article floating through the net on several different sites and honestly I don't know if this is a true article or not, I've seen a lot of ppl, even ppl who are anti bush say that this article is a bunch of shit ~ just something to piss ppl off. And .. it's working! lol

Since the article isn't from CNN.com or something, I can see why a lot of people would think it's fake, now that you mention it. I'm just too afraid that he'd actually do something like that.

 

[Pookie]

He must think that all homosexuals are terrorists or something. That man is so blind to the world. He's been living in his own personal bubble for too long.

He thinks we're all not going to vote for him. It's the one thing he's probably pretty close to being right about.

 

[Az_You_Wish]

Since the article isn't from CNN.com or something, I can see why a lot of people would think it's fake, now that you mention it. I'm just too afraid that he'd actually do something like that.

It's possible, but I really don't think he would. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening, openly. It is an awful reality though, it's happened before, people being fired for being gay, granted the "reason" they were fired wasn't because they were gay blah blah blah. If that makes any sense.

He thinks we're all not going to vote for him. It's the one thing he's probably pretty close to being right about.

lol that's for sure!

 

[ksmybuttons]

I admit that the article I posted was reactionary. That's why I give the links.

If you read the source documents at the bottom of the page on the link I offered and then did your own search you would find that the new head of the Office of Special Counsel doesn't feel that gays and lesbians should be a protected class.

A gay employee who is fired or demoted for attending a gay pride rally would receive protection from the Office of Special Counsel. But the same employee would have no recourse at OSC if he was fired or demoted simply for being gay.

This is new Special Counsel Scott Bloch’s initial reading of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions taken against them for reasons unrelated to their job performance. In his interpretation, Bloch is making a distinction between one’s conduct as a gay or lesbian and one’s status as a gay or lesbian.

Bloch, who began a five-year term as special counsel in January, said he does not believe the list of prohibited personnel actions outlined in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act covers discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“When you’re interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it’s written and not get into loose interpretations,” Bloch said. “Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class . . . and one is behavior.”

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2727185

I would suggest that you have an awareness and watch carefully, as will I.

 

[John Doe]

I admit that the article I posted was reactionary. That's why I give the links.

If you read the source documents at the bottom of the page on the link I offered and then did your own search you would find that the new head of the Office of Special Counsel doesn't feel that gays and lesbians should be a protected class.

I take it you disagree with the new head of the OSC?

 

[Az_You_Wish]

Kaplan said Bloch seems intent on narrowing the government’s long-held interpretation of the law to exclude gay, lesbian and bisexual employees from job protections.

That makes me so angry ~


And while it doesn't openly say that bush supports this, I have no doubt he does if this is what these two men are after. It's disgusting.

Granted ~ I am trying to learn more about the sources provided, ie: OSC, Federaltimes.com, and these men who are mentioned to see if this indeed something we should be concerned w/ or if it's one of those "this is my opinion, but it really wont go any further" type situations.

I don't see on what grounds they can actually make this go through. Not saying it would never happen, but the chances? Of ppl being able to openly fire gay ppl? It's possible ppl would fight for this to actually go through, but what are the true chances of this really happening?

Some interesting questions.

I take it you disagree with the new head of the OSC?

Don't you?

 

[Az_You_Wish]

sorry it's me again lol kids are asleep and I'm on a roll!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in re-reading this article ~ something good that may come out of it, is that this block moron has pointed something important out!! What if it doesn't protect gays/lesbians and the likes?? He may think it's in his favor, as obviously he's against us. However, this can backfire on him, making the public more aware of this can put things into motion to change this and make it a law that we are protected!!

Something in the article struck me as interesting though.

The act covers all conduct “which does not adversely affect” performance, although it doesn’t specifically list sexual orientation.

Well it doesn't say a lot of things, but it does state that anything that does not adversy affect performance is protected. I'd like to see his reasoning as to HOW exactly being gay/lesbian will affect our performance as employee's and will that reason stand up in court, should it go that far.

Bloch said he does not believe it is correct to equate conduct based on sexual orientation with sexual orientation itself. Such a link would mean gays, lesbians and bisexuals are covered as a protected class, even though they are not protected under the nation’s civil rights laws.

Anyone know much about the nations civil rights laws? I need to read that.

“When you’re interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it’s written and not get into loose interpretations,” Bloch said. “Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class . . . and one is behavior.”

Isn't he getting into loose interpreations though? lol by interpreting that and I quote "The act covers all conduct “which does not adversely affect” performance,". Isn't he trying to read between the lines and say that this doesn't cover homosexual relations? I mean, if he's saying that, then just what the hell does it cover?? It seems to me he thinks it's open to presonal interpretation, "well it means this and not that" .. YEA?? says' who, OTHER than you lol

Bloch said a senior OSC staff member first raised the issue shortly after Bloch took office in January by questioning a slide show presentation, used in training sessions with employees at federal agencies, that referred to OSC’s enforcement of sexual orientation discrimination. A couple of weeks later, Bloch said he decided to remove references to sexual orientation from the slide show and all other OSC materials posted online after reviewing the law and discovering that sexual orientation isn’t mentioned.

What puzzles me about this, and it may not after I read such laws, but what else was under the list, and why was sexual orientation removed and not others. Does anyone know?

Bloch said he is initiating a review of the issue and plans to meet with OPM and congressional staff to hear their opinions before making a final decision on how his office will handle complaints alleging sexual orientation discrimination. The review will not get completely under way until next month, when Bloch’s senior legal adviser begins work, he said.

If this is true, I want to find out when and how I can help fight against it as it seems to me, he has an agenda to make this go through, even though imo his interpreation of this law is increadibly flawed and down right asinine.

Bloch earned his law degree from the University of Kansas and was a partner in a Kansas law firm, where he specialized in civil rights law, employment law and legal ethics, according to the White House. Before he was nominated as special counsel, Bloch was deputy director of the Justice Department’s Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

It seems here that his previous job, has a lot to do with his opinions now ..

"Bloch was deputy director of the Justice Department’s Task Force for Faith-based and Community Initiatives."



Also ~ where does Dubya come into this? Am still trying to figure that out.

Edited ~ my spell sucks I admit it! lol esp. before my morning coffee.

 

[Az_You_Wish]

I found it!!!! lol

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Scott_J._Bloch

dubya nominated him *gag*

~

"As I reflect today on my background which has prepared me for this challenge, I am reminded that I grew up with an understanding of the importance of the underdog. My father was a lifelong member of a union, the Writers Guild of America, and he taught me the need for protections for those who are trying to earn a living for their families, who stand as a lone voice against a powerful industry. In my law practice, I learned to champion the small worker and found this work to be the most rewarding of my legal career. That sense of justice and the rule of law inspired me to come to Washington for a career in public service; it continues to inspire me in this new position for which I have been nominated."

If he's so worried about that, then why is he doing what he's doing?? Instead of saying "this doesn't cover gays, and if I can prove this I'm not going to protect them" He should be saying, this doesn't look to me like it protects gays, I need to change this so it does!!!!!

 

[Mary Hall]

I`ve said it once i`ll say it again: Bush is a dumbfuck

 

[south_florida_bicur]

i found this on another thread:

Three Texas surgeons were playing golf together and discussing surgeries they had performed. One of them said, "I'm the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident. I reattached them, and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England!"

The next one said, "That's nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in an accident, I reattached them, and 2 years later he won a gold medal in field events in the Olympics."

The third surgeon said, "You guys are damn amateurs. Several years ago a cowboy who was high on cocaine and alcohol, rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse's ass and a cowboy hat. Now he's president of the United States."

 

[Az_You_Wish]

LMAO .. omg that was hysterical!!!!

 

[Mary Hall]

Replace Bush with the govoner of California, he can`t do a worse job than Bush can he?