Laughing in the face of tragic stupidity

[AvoidingRealWork]

So the local public radio had a story about how our glorious state legislature is banning same-sex unions, and they noted that the business community is against this idiotic bill.

The business they chose to quote in the story was Cummings.

Mheh. huhuh. "Cummings." Cummings supports same sex unions. That rules.

Sorry, but sometimes humor is all you got.

 

[cantdog]

Businesses lead the way in the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals. They learned long ago, if they pay attention, that you only cost yourself access to a pool of talent and ideas if you discriminate.

The military, too, has an exemplary record in some ways, and for similar reasons. They integrated the 'races' before most of the world would do it. They had everyone under orders, and told them they were going to do it that way. The objections to those orders, if they were based on racism, were not legitimate objections. It worked. It opened the door for lots of other places to do the same. The military experience is one that a lot of Americans had been through, and they knew it would work from having done it.

So it isn't surprising that support would flow from the business world. Not every business is run by purblind fools.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

So it isn't surprising that support would flow from the business world. Not every business is run by purblind fools.

If people are turned off to moving to your state, for whatever reason, you're going to lose potential skilled employees. A lot of people are going to think, well, if that state is hostile to gays, is it also hostile to atheists? To Jews? To intellectuals? To single parents? Anything that diminishes your recruiting pool diminishes your business's potential.

For the business, it's a bottom-line thing, not an enlightenment thing.

 

[cantdog]

If people are turned off to moving to your state, for whatever reason, you're going to lose potential skilled employees. A lot of people are going to think, well, if that state is hostile to gays, is it also hostile to atheists? To Jews? To intellectuals? To single parents? Anything that diminishes your recruiting pool diminishes your business's potential.

For the business, it's a bottom-line thing, not an enlightenment thing.

Or ought to be. There are some small businesses which are clueless. That's what I was saying. It simply makes good business sense not to discriminate.

 

[oggbashan]

...

The military, too, has an exemplary record in some ways, and for similar reasons. They integrated the 'races' before most of the world would do it. They had everyone under orders, and told them they were going to do it that way. The objections to those orders, if they were based on racism, were not legitimate objections. It worked. It opened the door for lots of other places to do the same. The military experience is one that a lot of Americans had been through, and they knew it would work from having done it.

So it isn't surprising that support would flow from the business world. Not every business is run by purblind fools.

The US military in WWII was racist. In the UK we couldn't and wouldn't understand that black GIs were anything other than GIs. We had to be informed that black GIs were inferior and only suitable for mundane duties. At first, to us a GI was a GI - over-paid, over-sexed and over here (and our girls loved them whether they were white or black). Then D-Day came and all GIs were heroes to us.

Our army cannot claim to be better. Our treatment of Gurkhas is only now being put on a par with the rest of our armed forces, despite everything we owe to Gurkhas. However, Gurkhas were considered as mercenaries, not regular army.

Without forces of all colours and creeds from the Empire and Commonwealth we couldn't have survived World Wars 1 and 2 as long as we did. We owe them our thanks (and of course thanks to all GIs of whatever colour).

Og

 

[cantdog]

I'm sorry, Og, I should have said, the rest of the country would do it. It's what I meant. The US armed forces integrated while they were still labeling water taps for whites only back in the States. The military took the move before the Civil Rights Acts by quite some little bit. The armies of the rest of the world are as different as the cultures of the rest of the world. I simply put down the wrong word.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

The US military in WWII was racist. In the UK we couldn't and wouldn't understand that black GIs were anything other than GIs. We had to be informed that black GIs were inferior and only suitable for mundane duties. At first, to us a GI was a GI - over-paid, over-sexed and over here (and our girls loved them whether they were white or black). Then D-Day came and all GIs were heroes to us.

Our army cannot claim to be better. Our treatment of Gurkhas is only now being put on a par with the rest of our armed forces, despite everything we owe to Gurkhas. However, Gurkhas were considered as mercenaries, not regular army.

Without forces of all colours and creeds from the Empire and Commonwealth we couldn't have survived World Wars 1 and 2 as long as we did. We owe them our thanks (and of course thanks to all GIs of whatever colour).

Og

Exactly, Og.

Corporate is far more more ready to adapt to changing mores than statist bureaucrats ( including the military).

 

[lushlucid]

terrible that the people against the bill are probably only against it for money

 

[rgraham666]

Exactly, Og.

Corporate is far more more ready to adapt to changing mores than statist bureaucrats ( including the military).

And that's why business wouldn't hire black people for ages? Because the 'statists' (I loathe that word) wouldn't let them?