12/10/2008 - Day Without a Gay

[bradl]

Heard this this morning on the Adam Carolla show. Sounds interesting...

www.daywithoutagay.org (http://www.daywithoutagay.org)

I am far from GLBT, but I'm willing to participate/support/(don't) do something..

Thoughts/comments/rants/raves, everyone?

BL.

[leekohler]

Well, normally this wouldn't work. But after Prop 8, the solidarity I've seen is encouraging. So who knows?

[bradl]

True.. But then again, with 30 states having laws which you can't be fired from your job because of sexual orientation, I wouldn't be surprised if this does work.

The good thing I heard on Carolla this morning was that it was primarily to not contribute to the economy. The gas you already put in your car wouldn't be contributing, watching recorded TV wouldn't be contributing, so there's plenty of ways..

Funnily enough, it would mean to not come here, if you haven't donated. Doesn't MR generate revenue for all of the ad-supported pages?

BL.

[iJohnHenry]

Copyright © 2008, DayWithoutAGay.org. All Rights Reserved.

Sure, buy a t-shirt. :rolleyes:

[yg17]

True.. But then again, with 30 states having laws which you can't be fired from your job because of sexual orientation, I wouldn't be surprised if this does work.

But you can still be fired if you don't show up for work.

[bradl]

But you can still be fired if you don't show up for work.

The key was that someone would call in sick for work, or have some excuse for not coming in. If they came out and said that they were GLBT, then it brings up the possibility of some lawsuits..

BL.

[leekohler]

But you can still be fired if you don't show up for work.

I've got plenty of PTO left this year. ;)

[gilkisson]

It depends on your state. Around here, in a "right to work state", not showing up for work without notice can be (and often is) grounds for termination. The reason *why* you "abandoned" your job are considered to be irrelevant.

[mkrishnan]

I wish I had heard about this earlier -- I have already got patients scheduled for next Wednesday... or I'd call in in support of gay. :p

Lee or anyone, know of anything going on in Chicago? I'm done with work at about 5PM next Wednesday, so if there're any evening volunteering opportunities I would be glad to get involved.

[leekohler]

I wish I had heard about this earlier -- I have already got patients scheduled for next Wednesday... or I'd call in in support of gay. :p

Lee or anyone, know of anything going on in Chicago? I'm done with work at about 5PM next Wednesday, so if there're any evening volunteering opportunities I would be glad to get involved.

Here you go:

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Day+Without+a+Gay?t=anon

[stevento]

WTF are these people smoking?

here's an excerpt from the join the impact link

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

STRIKE: call in gay, shut down your business, or just take the day off.

BOYCOTT: don't buy anything, spend money or support the economy.
....

....
Wake up for work on Wednesday December 10th... and call in GAY.
Go to the bank and take $80 out of your account... put it in your pocket and KEEP IT THERE.
Do not go get your morning latte
Do not purchase anything
Do not contribute to advertising revenue: Meaning, spend 24 hours of your life without TV & Internet
Do not use your cell phone, even if you have unlimited minutes


.......:confused::confused:
how is this going to have any effect on gay rights? this sounds a lot like the "dont buy gas for a day on may 1" plan.... and how well did that work?
the thing is, if you dont buy gas on monday, you're going to buy gas the day before or the day after, so there's no change consumption.

[CalBoy]

.......:confused::confused:
how is this going to have any effect on gay rights? this sounds a lot like the "dont buy gas for a day on may 1" plan.... and how well did that work?
the thing is, if you dont buy gas on monday, you're going to buy gas the day before or the day after, so there's no change consumption.

The point is to demonstrate the economic impact of teh ghey™.

The gay community has disproportionately more spending power per capita compared to most other socio-econ subdivisions, and in this economy you can bet that retailers are going to miss our dollars.

And no, this isn't like skipping gas for one day. Certain things like the latte will never be made up for, and the point isn't to weaken a supply market (in the case of the gas boycott) but rather to demonstrate financial strength.

You know the old saying: you don't miss something until it's gone. ;)

[ucfgrad93]

I love this quote!

On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work. You are encouraged to call in "gay"--and donate your time to service!

Yeah, the boss will surely go for that.:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I love this quote!



Yeah, the boss will surely go for that.:rolleyes:

Actually, in my office, it would be just fine. I work for a very inclusive company. I could absolutely call in, tell them the reason, and they'd be completely supportive.

[P-Worm]

I think this is a great idea. I think that showing the world what kind of people the gay community is can have a great impact on their push for equality. I hope it goes well and gets the publicity the community hopes for.

But as for the name, it's terrible. Day Without a Gay? It sounds like a hate movement. Like "string 'em up" or something. Am I the only one the thinks the name of the event could have been better?

P-Worm

[leekohler]

I think this is a great idea. I think that showing the world what kind of people the gay community is can have a great impact on their push for equality. I hope it goes well and gets the publicity the community hopes for.

But as for the name, it's terrible. Day Without a Gay? It sounds like a hate movement. Like "string 'em up" or something. Am I the only one the thinks the name of the event could have been better?

P-Worm

I don't think it's that bad. I kinda like it. Ya know- everything has to rhyme. :) Thanks for the words...

[P-Worm]

Are you going to be participating Lee?

P-Worm

[ucfgrad93]

Actually, in my office, it would be just fine. I work for a very inclusive company. I could absolutely call in, tell them the reason, and they'd be completely supportive.

Then, I should be allowed to call in heterosexual? Look, I'm not knocking the idea that people are upset and want to show how they feel. It's just that calling in gay sounds really stupid.

[leekohler]

Then, I should be allowed to call in heterosexual? Look, I'm not knocking the idea that people are upset and want to show how they feel. It's just that calling in gay sounds really stupid.

Umm, does your company offer paternity leave? And the "calling in gay" thing was tongue in cheek. They meant basically what I said in my response to your other post. In other words, say exactly why you're calling in. Let people know.

Are you going to be participating Lee?

P-Worm

I might, as long as I don't have any crazy deadlines.

[EricNau]

Then, I should be allowed to call in heterosexual? Look, I'm not knocking the idea that people are upset and want to show how they feel. It's just that calling in gay sounds really stupid.
It'd only be stupid if wasn't backed by a national movement.

[iJohnHenry]

The point is to demonstrate the economic impact of teh ghey™.

OK, fair enough.

So in order for this measurement to occur properly, all us heteros should just go on with business as usual??

That's how I read it.

[bradl]

OK, fair enough.

So in order for this measurement to occur properly, all us heteros should just go on with business as usual??

That's how I read it.

You don't have to. Obviously, you could call in sick yourselves, or just not contribute anything to the economy for that day. For example, go into work, bring your lunch, go home, and listen to something like NPR or watch PBS for the evening. No commercial radio or TV; otherwise the shows get the ratings and revenue from ads based on viewership.

You don't have to be gay to contribute or participate.

BL.

[CalBoy]

OK, fair enough.

So in order for this measurement to occur properly, all us heteros should just go on with business as usual??

That's how I read it.

If you are an ally of the gay rights movement, you might also want to participate, since you're sending the message that gay rights goes beyond ~10% of the population.

If you're not interested in gay rights then you should go on with business as usual on Wednesday and witness the economic impact; hopefully it will prove to be a valuable learning moment.

[mactastic]

A day without a gay huh? Sounds like every day in Iran...

[leekohler]

A day without a gay huh? Sounds like every day in Iran...

Oh no, no, no... they need us for public executions. So even they need us everyday. :mad:

[mactastic]

Oh no, no, no... they need us for public executions. So even they need us everyday. :mad:
Which, of course, begs the question of how you can execute someone who doesn't technically exist.

Unfortunately, they seem to have found a way to make it happen.:(

[stevento]

The point is to demonstrate the economic impact of teh ghey™.
And no, this isn't like skipping gas for one day. Certain things like the latte will never be made up for, and the point isn't to weaken a supply market (in the case of the gas boycott) but rather to demonstrate financial strength.

right but how does that further gay rights?
what do they hope to achieve?
i think this is a bad idea. since gas prices have burst this season, this could be the first christmas season in a long time where spending is what it should be. we haven't had that since bush took office. our economy really could use big consumer spending right now.

[bradl]

right but how does that further gay rights?
what do they hope to achieve?
i think this is a bad idea. since gas prices have burst this season, this could be the first christmas season in a long time where spending is what it should be. we haven't had that since bush took office. our economy really could use big consumer spending right now.

You've just answered your own question. As mentioned earlier, the GLBT community spends quite a lot, putting money into that economy. A day without it through various means will give notice to everyone else that their fight/plight/whatever should not be overlooked.

Like the Cinderella song said, "Don't know what you've got 'til it's gone."

BL.

[iJohnHenry]

If you're not interested in gay rights then you should go on with business as usual on Wednesday and witness the economic impact; hopefully it will prove to be a valuable learning moment.

I am interested, but being retired, and a volunteer, others would suffer if I withheld my services next Wednesday.

Sorry.

[CalBoy]

right but how does that further gay rights?

In the same way that a union's strike furthers their desires for higher wages: it demonstrates their value. It's difficult to know how much something is worth until it's gone.

i think this is a bad idea. since gas prices have burst this season, this could be the first christmas season in a long time where spending is what it should be. we haven't had that since bush took office. our economy really could use big consumer spending right now.

Oh, so now you want the money that gays have to offer?

So why do you keep going around trying to defend the Prop 8 people?

Bigots can't have it both ways. They voted this way (well 52% did anyway), and now they have to pay for it with the economy.

I am interested, but being retired, and a volunteer, others would suffer if I withheld my services next Wednesday.

Sorry.

Of course you're Canadian; in reality all gay Americans should be going up there to shop and stimulate your economy, since you guys grant equal rights. ;)

However, even if you were American, you could always not shop for personal items and still help those in need.

[Macaddicttt]

Bigots can't have it both ways. They voted this way (well 52% did anyway), and now they have to pay for it with the economy

Right, because Prop. 8 was structured to get rid of "the gays"...

I don't understand this idea. I assume it's based on "A Day Without a Mexican", but that actually made sense because people wanted to get rid of them (i.e block immigration and deport them). Maybe they should do, "A Day Without Gay Marriage" to prove their point. Oh, wait...

[CalBoy]

Right, because Prop. 8 was structured to get rid of "the gays"...

I don't understand this idea. I assume it's based on "A Day Without a Mexican", but that actually made sense because people wanted to get rid of them (i.e block immigration and deport them). Maybe they should do, "A Day Without Gay Marriage" to prove their point. Oh, wait...

The original May Day protests (coupled with boycotts) was intended to show the value of Mexican immigrants in the economy because in many parts of the US, people blur the lines between legal immigration and illegal immigration.

And while Prop 8 wasn't structured to get "rid of gays," it certainly went as far as it could in a state like California. In other states like Florida or Arkansas, gays have essentially been legislated away because they have no rights to civil unions, adoption, etc. Prop 8 wasn't the only hateful measure on the ballot on the Fourth.

[chrmjenkins]

In terms of economic impact, I don't think missing out on 10% of a day's income will bother retailers too much. Make it a week, then I think it would have some impact.

[Macaddicttt]

And while Prop 8 wasn't structured to get "rid of gays," it certainly went as far as it could in a state like California. In other states like Florida or Arkansas, gays have essentially been legislated away because they have no rights to civil unions, adoption, etc. Prop 8 wasn't the only hateful measure on the ballot on the Fourth.

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how "rights to civil unions, adoption, etc." is being "legislated away." Gays can vote, hold property, run for office, run a business, get a job without being turned down for sexual orientation, etc. I feel like this is bordering on unnecessary hyperbole. And, I might add, no laws based on the fourth of November mentioned homosexuality at all (I believe; correct me if I'm wrong).

[EricNau]

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how "rights to civil unions, adoption, etc." is being "legislated away." Gays can vote, hold property, run for office, run a business, get a job without being turned down for sexual orientation, etc. I feel like this is bordering on unnecessary hyperbole.
While not specifically addressed in the constitution, marriage is a well established right. It was taken away from a group of people. I don't see why this is difficult to comprehend. :confused:

And, I might add, no laws based on the fourth of November mentioned homosexuality at all (I believe; correct me if I'm wrong).
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment doesn't specifically mention guns. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of your argument. While Prop 8 didn't use the words "ban homosexuals from marrying," that's exactly what it did.

[CalBoy]

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how "rights to civil unions, adoption, etc." is being "legislated away." Gays can vote, hold property, run for office, run a business, get a job without being turned down for sexual orientation, etc. I feel like this is bordering on unnecessary hyperbole.

Alright then, what if we started to ban all individuals from being able to join in marriage or civil unions? No right to adopt children, regardless of who you are.

You still don't think that's a right that is being lost?

Please, you know better.

Let's also not forget that in those states gay couples don't have hospital visitation rights (which includes being able to make medical decisions), and writing a trust becomes more difficult because the Tax Man is going to come and take a much larger chunk relative to if you are married.

And, I might add, no laws based on the fourth of November mentioned homosexuality at all (I believe; correct me if I'm wrong).

Florida and Arizona both banned gay marriage, explicitly. Civil unions are still legally possible in Arizona, but the legislature hasn't created them yet (and likely won't in a state that is swing Republican).

The Arkansas ban doesn't mention gay couples, but its net effect is most against them. Straight couples who want to adopt tend to be married anyway, and if they aren't, they always can.

Guess what you can't do in Arkansas? That's right, marry your gay partner.

[stevento]

In the same way that a union's strike furthers their desires for higher wages: it demonstrates their value. It's difficult to know how much something is worth until it's gone.
Oh, so now you want the money that gays have to offer?
So why do you keep going around trying to defend the Prop 8 people?
Bigots can't have it both ways. They voted this way (well 52% did anyway), and now they have to pay for it with the economy.



I keep defending Prop 8 people because they aren't really that bad and they are certainly not bigots. they are not full of hate and they really are nothing like what they are characterized to be. i did not agree with the argument they made and that's why i voted no on prop 8. but the majority voted for it. so this is the plan ?:
1. boycott and skip work for one day
2. economy goes south
3. the so called "bigots" recognize your value and repeal prop 8
...?

what you have to understand what is at stake when talking about prop 8. almost nothing.
here is why i dont think prop 8 is discriminatory:
1. there's nothing stopping a same sex couple from living together and calling themselves married.
2. In CA, you still get the same legal rights in a domestic partners, tax breaks, hospital visitation rights etc are ALL YOURS
3. there is (edit) tangibly NO DIFFERENCE in same sex couple's life. the only difference AT ALL that prop 8 makes is that it doesn't hold any water legally, which means its much easier for a gay couple to get divorced.

if you are gay how is your life different because of prop 8?

[CalBoy]

I keep defending Prop 8 people because they aren't really that bad and they are certainly not bigots.

Of course no one likes to admit that.

Heck I bet if we asked AIG executives if they are good with money, they'd say yes. Doesn't make it so.

The people who voted for Prop 8, knowing that it had no bearing on schools, schools, or churches, are bigots. No matter how you slice and dice it. Either they didn't want to share a word, or they don't like gay people (which still represents about 20% of the population nationally btw).

When you don't want to share a term simply because of your beliefs then you are a bigot because your reasoning(or lack thereof) is not based on logic but stubborn old practices.


they are not full of hate and they really are nothing like what they are characterized to be.

Not all of Prop 8 voters are hateful. Those that did vote on the basis of not wanting to share the word, however, are.

Many people fell into the trap that the Yes on 8 side put up using scare tactics. Those people aren't hateful, they're just ignorant. They can be brought over to understand why they should have voted no (and in fact, post-election polls show that Californians have already changed their minds, with 52% now saying they would vote no if the vote were held again).

i did not agree with the argument they made and that's why i voted no on prop 8. but the majority voted for it.

So do you always defend majority votes then?

I guess you would have found slavery acceptable then, since a majority voted for that.

Or how about Jim Crow laws?

Classifying women as property?

Burning witches at the stake?

If you don't agree with their argument, then stop defending them. Your insistence indicates to me that you regret how you voted.

so this is the plan ?:
1. boycott and skip work for one day
2. economy goes south
3. the so called "bigots" recognize your value and repeal prop 8
...?

The bigots will never realize the value of another human being; that's precisely how they turn into bigots.

The ones who will see the awesome power of solidarity and economic coordination are those who were unsure or confused before. Now they're going to see that "gays" aren't an amorphis term but that we are friends, neighbors, sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, father, mothers, and most importantly, humans.

what you have to understand what is at stake when talking about prop 8. almost nothing.
here is why i dont think prop 8 is discriminatory:
1. there's nothing stopping a same sex couple from living together and calling themselves married.
2. In CA, you still get the same legal rights in a domestic partners, tax breaks, hospital visitation rights etc are ALL YOURS
3. there is tangible NO DIFFERENCE in same sex couple's life. the only difference AT ALL that prop 8 makes is that it doesn't hold any water legally, which means its much easier for a gay couple to get divorced.

if you are gay how is your life different because of prop 8?

We've been over this before, and I've been over this many times myself. I don't care to get into a long drawn out discussion about the specifics.

The long and short of it is that separate but equal doesn't work. It fundamentally can't. Beyond that, there's a great deal of dignity that comes along with being able to say that you have access to all the same things that everyone else has.

[aethelbert]

Even if all of the economic activity is deleted to make a statement, it's not like anyone will be fearing it because the next day will be normal. I really hope that people aren't calling in sick for this, because then we'll be seeing lawsuits over discrimination when someone gets caught lying to HR. If they allow for you to play the game, go for it. If not, I wish you luck in the legal system if you don't have any vacation/personal days this late in the year.

The impact of such an event would only be substantial if the lack of this activity was kept up for a long period of time, like two weeks or something. But getting people to comply in the first place won't be complete, and those that do probably won't be taking two weeks out of their productive lives to make a statement.

[stevento]

I guess you would have found slavery acceptable then, since a majority voted for that.

we've already had this conversation. that is not the same thing AT ALL.
denying you the right to marry a certain person is nothing like denying you the right to freedom of choice. nobody is saying you cant be with that person. nobody is saying you can't have equal legal rights and responsibilities. all they're saying it only holds legal water as a marriage if it fits this one condition.
you're not being denied the right to marry, because a gay man can marry woman.
your argument is like saying "i want to marry this golden retriever and if you don't want to legally recognize it then you're a bigot! don't judge me because of my lifestyle choice!"
the fact of the matter is, its just not a marriage.
we're defining marriage as one man and one woman. what you do in your life is YOUR BUSINESS but its only a marriage if it fits that definition.

[yg17]

we've already had this conversation. that is not the same thing AT ALL.
denying you the right to marry a certain person is nothing like denying you the right to freedom of choice. nobody is saying you cant be with that person. nobody is saying you can't have equal legal rights and responsibilities. all they're saying it only holds legal water as a marriage if it fits this one condition.
you're not being denied the right to marry, because a gay man can marry woman.
your argument is like saying "i want to marry this golden retriever and if you don't want to legally recognize it then you're a bigot! don't judge me because of my lifestyle choice!"
the fact of the matter is, its just not a marriage.
we're defining marriage as one man and one woman. what you do in your life is YOUR BUSINESS but its only a marriage if it fits that definition.

You have a thing for pulling talking points out of your ass, don't you? There are only a small handful of states, maybe 5 or 6, that offer any sort of legal rights to same sex couples (and likely not even all the rights married couples get). The rest? You can't even get a civil union or whatever you want to call it. You get nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. Zero.

[CalBoy]

we've already had this conversation. that is not the same thing AT ALL.

Fundamentally, it is exactly the same thing.

You're implying that we should let majority votes decide rights for minorities.

If that's the case, then why not defend slavery, Jim Crow, etc, on those grounds as well? Or do you concede that majority votes are not always right?

Given that California, and the US, is a constitutional republic, I would imagine that we would stenuously object to letting simple majorities change the Constitution.


denying you the right to marry a certain person is nothing like denying you the right to freedom of choice. nobody is saying you cant be with that person. nobody is saying you can't have equal legal rights and responsibilities. all they're saying it only holds legal water as a marriage if it fits this one condition.
you're not being denied the right to marry, because a gay man can marry woman.
your argument is like saying "i want to marry this golden retriever and if you don't want to legally recognize it then you're a bigot! don't judge me because of my lifestyle choice!"
the fact of the matter is, its just not a marriage.
we're defining marriage as one man and one woman. what you do in your life is YOUR BUSINESS but its only a marriage if it fits that definition.

The rest of this drivel clearly points to where your thought process comes from.

[stevento]

There are only a small handful of states, maybe 5 or 6, that offer any sort of legal rights to same sex couples

and guess what? CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THEM. and guess what else? PROP 8 ONLY HAS JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA!!


Given that California, and the US, is a constitutional republic, I would imagine that we would stenuously object to letting simple majorities change the Constitution.
changing the constitution is constitutional. that's why we have amendments.

what i'm getting at with my golden retriever argument is that we have to put some restrictions on marriage. by your logic, we really shouldn't put any restrictions on marriage at all.

[leekohler]

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how "rights to civil unions, adoption, etc." is being "legislated away." Gays can vote, hold property, run for office, run a business, get a job without being turned down for sexual orientation, etc. I feel like this is bordering on unnecessary hyperbole. And, I might add, no laws based on the fourth of November mentioned homosexuality at all (I believe; correct me if I'm wrong).

Excuse me? So you think that gay people shouldn't have the right to adopt or draw up binding legal contracts? You don't see that as discriminatory? Are you ********** kidding me? Do you even know what the laws are in hideous places like Ohio or Michigan? Do you realize that gay people can't even share any type of benefits with their partners in these states like heterosexuals can? Are you paying attention?

and guess what? CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THEM. and guess what else? PROP 8 ONLY HAS JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA!!


changing the constitution is constitutional. that's why we have amendments.

what i'm getting at with my golden retriever argument is that we have to put some restrictions on marriage. by your logic, we really shouldn't put any restrictions on marriage at all.

Not this kind of restriction, no. Give me one good reason why legal rights should be restricted against gays.

we've already had this conversation. that is not the same thing AT ALL.
denying you the right to marry a certain person is nothing like denying you the right to freedom of choice. nobody is saying you cant be with that person. nobody is saying you can't have equal legal rights and responsibilities. all they're saying it only holds legal water as a marriage if it fits this one condition.
you're not being denied the right to marry, because a gay man can marry woman.
your argument is like saying "i want to marry this golden retriever and if you don't want to legally recognize it then you're a bigot! don't judge me because of my lifestyle choice!"
the fact of the matter is, its just not a marriage.
we're defining marriage as one man and one woman. what you do in your life is YOUR BUSINESS but its only a marriage if it fits that definition.

A golden retriever can't sign a contract. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL! Stop using these ridiculous arguments to support your bigoted views. It makes me sick. You should know better.

BTW- why should you be able to marry a white girl? I'm against it. I'm not a bigot. You can marry a black girl. See- we have the same rights! There should be restrictions on marriage after all. You're just trying to destroy the white race by mixing genes and I won't have it! :rolleyes:

Get it yet? Maybe?

[CalBoy]

changing the constitution is constitutional. that's why we have amendments.

Do you notice any kind of discrepency between the way to change the Federal Constitution versus the California Constitution?

2/3rds of Congress + 3/4 of the states vs 50%+1 of the popular vote.

Not exactly the same now is it? A respectable constitution should not be easier to change than a budget is to pass. :rolleyes:

what i'm getting at with my golden retriever argument is that we have to put some restrictions on marriage. by your logic, we really shouldn't put any restrictions on marriage at all.

Your golden retriever garbage is complete nonsense.

Unless you're implying that all gay people are like dogs now. Are we unable to understand the terms of a marriage license? Do we not have an ability to think rationally? No? Then drop it.

Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults, not two dogs, cats, or anything else. To suggest otherwise is very insulting and narrow minded in the worst of ways.

[it5five]

Maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see how "rights to civil unions, adoption, etc." is being "legislated away." Gays can vote, hold property, run for office, run a business, get a job without being turned down for sexual orientation, etc. I feel like this is bordering on unnecessary hyperbole. And, I might add, no laws based on the fourth of November mentioned homosexuality at all (I believe; correct me if I'm wrong).

The lengths you people go to justify your bigotry never ceases to amaze me. You're too ashamed to come right out and say you are a bigot for inequality (and it is inequality. Until gay Americans can do everything straight Americans can do: adopt and marry the partner of their choice, there is inequality), so you use all sorts of twisted logic to justify yourself.

I really hope, and think, that future generations will look back upon you and others like you as people who held back progress and fought against civil rights and equality for all.

[Iscariot]

I keep defending Prop 8 people because they aren't really that bad and they are certainly not bigots.

You keep defending Prop 8 because you are absolutely unwilling (or unable) to deal with being wrong. The incredible mental gymnastics you are doing to defend what is nothing less than hate legislation is a routine just like your never ending deluge of Hillary Clinton fanaticism.
what i'm getting at with my golden retriever argument is that we have to put some restrictions on marriage.

A golden retriever can never give consent.

[ErikCLDR]

Let me start off by saying that I am all for gay rights.

I just think that these "days" they have such as the day of silence and now this "day without a gay" (which sounds kind of negative actually) are a little ridiculous. I don't understand how not going to work or being silent all day will help your cause.

[zap2]

Let me start off by saying that I am all for gay rights.

I just think that these "days" they have such as the day of silence and now this "day without a gay" (which sounds kind of negative actually) are a little ridiculous. I don't understand how not going to work or being silent all day will help your cause.

I see this one making more sense, if the whole work force doesn't show up, nothings gonna get done, and no ones gonna make money

If everyone is quite, its just easier for people who hate to continuing hating. I see where people are coming from with "day of slience", but I like the day without a gay idea more.

[gilkisson]

what i'm getting at with my golden retriever argument is that we have to put some restrictions on marriage. by your logic, we really shouldn't put any restrictions on marriage at all.

Why do you feel the need to place restrictions on other people? You used a rather kinky example about marrying your golden retriever (ewww, but whatever). Didn't make a lot of sense, so let's try this:

I have a book I feel very strongly about. It is a Holy Cookbook. It explains exactly how to run a Heavenly Kitchen. It is Perfect. In that book, in which I believe, it explains that cranberries are really devil turds, are pure evil, and must be avoided. No more reason than that, just that they are bad, mmkay?

Now, I've gone up and down the block, all over the city, selling people on my Heavenly Kitchen book. Everyone is converted... except that one guy. There he is, walking along, eating sun-dried cranberries! In public! And enjoying it!!!! What an outrage! Doesn't he know my Tome of Exalted Recipes says eating cranberries is a gravy sin! I hate cranberries, so now I have to hate him too!

So we pass a law, banning cranberries and cran-eaters. It does not matter one bit if anyone has heard of my holy book, or if they think it's complete crap (blasphemy, but I'll hate them later). They have no choice! The Great Chef in the Sky has a place for me, peeling His Holy Taters for eternity, and I'll be dammed if some cranberry-eatin' so-and-so is gonna queer:eek: the deal!

Now, does that sound fair to you? Sound like "Land of the Free" talk?

Ooh, here's an idea -- don't like cranberries? DON'T EAT THEM! Don't want them in your house? DON"T BUY THEM! No need to pass a law. No wasting your time and energy, working up a good hate for something so frivolous. Go back into your Holy Recipes and read what it says about those who refuse to share food with others, who grow fat while watching children starve in the cold. Why not hate on them, if you must hate something? Get a law passed that actually benefits real people?

How freaking hard is that to understand? Now, go outside and play with your Golden Retriever.. or whatever.

BTW, I really do hate cranberries. But not enough to hate someone who likes them.

[neiltc13]

Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love.

Yet again the idiots in the "movement" shoot themselves in the foot by trying to link homosexuality to other things. You can engage in a relationship with someone of the same gender if you like but honestly when people start plowing this stuff in your face trying to say that people are inherently nicer or are "sensitive" solely because of their sexual orientation then it is just getting ridiculous.

As for gay adoption it should be illegal in my opinion - it simply isn't fair on the child. I'm agnostic, but whatever force created us dictated that a child can only be created by a man and a woman. It is unfair to alter that and it is also unfair on the child to be brought into a situation where they are open to criticism from their peers for something which they had no control over.

[gilkisson]

I'm agnostic, but whatever force created us dictated that a child can only be created by a man and a woman.

That "force" is biology. Survival of the herd. Propagation of the species.

If we lived in a time and place where life was harsh and food was scarce, where the tribe/community needed as many births as possible, to offset the high mortality rate, and where food resources were so tight that food could not be wasted on those who were not reproducing... then you might have an argument. Might.

But we're not there now, are we? Even in these newspaper-selling "hard times", the vast majority of us in industrialized nations don't go to bed hungry every night. We even have expensive toys to play with and express our thoughts across the globe. Hardly survival mode. And one thing that is certainly not in short supply, is people. 6 billion of us.

Now, I grant you, there are probably a lot of people who choose not to bring a child into the world, who really ought to, for the sake of keeping their DNA in the pool. And there are a lot of people who don't even think about it, just keep punching out baby after baby, each one dumber than the next. I recommend the opening scene of the movie Idiocracy as illustration...

In the meantime, you say there is a Force which dictates. Please prove this Force is more than biology, and show why your view must be imposed on me.

[CalBoy]

As for gay adoption it should be illegal in my opinion - it simply isn't fair on the child.

Unloving foster system on the one hand and two committed adults who love the child on the other.

Yeah, it's clear which way the unfair pendulum swings.:rolleyes:

I'm agnostic, but whatever force created us dictated that a child can only be created by a man and a woman.

Does that imply that a child can only be raised by a man and a woman?

What about single parents? The very biology that creates life also takes it away. Should we remove children from homes that don't have both parental units present?

It is unfair to alter that and it is also unfair on the child to be brought into a situation where they are open to criticism from their peers for something which they had no control over.

So if a couple's last name is "Dickwad" should we bar that couple from having a child?

Your sense of social adaptability is very narrow. For more than a decade now children have been growing up in the world of same-sex parents. Children are very accepting of others and their ability to handle profound change is much greater than that of any adult.

[FreeState]

As for gay adoption it should be illegal in my opinion - it simply isn't fair on the child. I'm agnostic, but whatever force created us dictated that a child can only be created by a man and a woman. It is unfair to alter that and it is also unfair on the child to be brought into a situation where they are open to criticism from their peers for something which they had no control over.

You do realize there is not a single peer reviewed study that show gay and lesbians make bad parents? Studies shows kids raised by gay couples are just as balanced and happy as those raised by heterosexual couples - and in the case of children of lesbians, several studies actually show that the children do better than with heterosexual or gay male parents.

[EricNau]

As for gay adoption it should be illegal in my opinion - it simply isn't fair on the child. I'm agnostic, but whatever force created us dictated that a child can only be created by a man and a woman. It is unfair to alter that and it is also unfair on the child to be brought into a situation where they are open to criticism from their peers for something which they had no control over.
It also isn't fair that my dad died when I was a child and my mom was forced to raise her two sons alone, but she did, and she did an excellent job.

To imply that anything short of a "normal" family is unfair to the child, or otherwise cannot result in a properly raised child, is not only insulting to me, but terribly insulting to my mother who was able to raise her children while dealing with the loss of her husband. She has sacrificed so much for me, that there's no way I can ever repay her.

I can't even begin to express how offensive and upsetting your comment was to me personally.

[stevento]

As for gay adoption it should be illegal in my opinion - it simply isn't fair on the child

I didn't want to be the first to say so but my opinion is somewhat inline with yours. I do not think gay adoption is ever a good choice, but then again I do not think it should be outlawed. I believe that a gay couple is never the best choice for a child but I think its better than bouncing around from one foster home to the next.
now the homosexuals will respond to this by saying "oh hell naww! i should have equal rights and therefore I should be able to adopt a child"
but the bottom line is, not everything in the world is about you and your rights. the needs of the child come before your sense of entitlement to be able to adopt the child. what the child needs is one mom and one dad. anything else falls short of what is right. on this issue i really dont rive a rat's butt about your "rights" because this is bigger than that.
...but if the child is bouncing from one place to the next then a gay home is in all likelihood a better choice than that. but it should come with a whole boatload of strings attached.

[CalBoy]

I do not think gay adoption is ever a good choice,

Ok, forget gay adoption for a second.

What about if a gay couple has a child that is genetically theirs?

Would you stop them from using a fertility doctor?

[stevento]

no, if that's the case, then the child is yours and nobody can take it away from you, unless they can present just cause to believe the child is in danger or be subject to neglect.
but adoption is (and should be) a privilege, not a right.
i'll say this: the biological parents are usually the best choice.

[CalBoy]

no, if that's the case, then the child is yours and nobody can take it away from you,

Of course then with that you alter the market for adoption.

There are already too many children up for adoption and not enough parents to adopt them. If you would statutorily limit the pool of possible parents even further, you essentially make it harder for those children to be placed into a loving home.

What's more, the basis is rather arbitrary. Others have already mentioned that children raised in same-sex households do just fine (in some cases marginally better) than those raised in hetero households.

Do you really want gay couples bypassing the adoption process and instead going through fertility clinics just so they don't have to fear legal harassment?


but adoption is (and should be) a privilege, not a right.

Of course not. We wouldn't mindlessly let people pick up children.

However, there is already a procedure in place for that that examines objective criteria like income, stability, background checks, etc.

Using sexual orientation as a limit on adoption is pointless since it doesn't advance the protection of the child any. By doing so, you would make the adoption process itself fundamentally unfair, especially if you want to implement this:

but it should come with a whole boatload of strings attached.

As if to say that gay parents are necessarily more suspect than straight parents.

i'll say this: the biological parents are usually the best choice.

We have more than enough biological parents in this world.

That's how we end up with such large adoption rosters to begin with.

Mind you I understand the desire to have a child that is biologically the same as you (and I'd like one too), but it doesn't change the responsibility we have to help those kids who are less fortunate.

[neiltc13]

It also isn't fair that my dad died when I was a child and my mom was forced to raise her two sons alone, but she did, and she did an excellent job.

To imply that anything short of a "normal" family is unfair to the child, or otherwise cannot result in a properly raised child, is not only insulting to me, but terribly insulting to my mother who was able to raise her children while dealing with the loss of her husband. She has sacrificed so much for me, that there's no way I can ever repay her.

I can't even begin to express how offensive and upsetting your comment was to me personally.

This wasn't my intention. You still had a father, just like everyone else. A child who is brought into a homosexual relationship will either have no mother whatsoever or no father whatsoever.

I'm sure while you were growing up you still had the influence of your father, like perhaps when your mother would say "your dad liked that" or such things. In a relationship like the one that so many people are proposing, there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

This wasn't my intention. You still had a father, just like everyone else. A child who is brought into a homosexual relationship will either have no mother whatsoever or no father whatsoever.

I'm sure while you were growing up you still had the influence of your father, like perhaps when your mother would say "your dad liked that" or such things. In a relationship like the one that so many people are proposing, there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.

And to say having homosexual parents is unfair for a child is naive and ignorant.

[Blue Velvet]

In a relationship like the one that so many people are proposing, there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.


Since some of us have some experience with partners and children bought up in such relationships with none of the problems that you propose must exist, I suggest that it is you who is being naive. What's more, in your argument, what exactly is different about being bought up in a single parent household, for instance?

[.Andy]

I'm sure while you were growing up you still had the influence of your father, like perhaps when your mother would say "your dad used to beat me" or such things.
Influence isn't necessarily a positive.

[CalBoy]

there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

A bit locked into gender roles are we?

I wonder, is it the job of the mother to teach her children how to be clean and the job of the father to teach his children life lessons?

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.

Perhaps if you actually bothered to read studies on the issue, or meet gay parents and their children, or heck, even if you bothered to consult a local psychologist about the actual effects you would realize who is being naive.

I also loved the way you dodged the point about foster care versus a gay couple's home. Too tough a choice?

[it5five]

This wasn't my intention. You still had a father, just like everyone else. A child who is brought into a homosexual relationship will either have no mother whatsoever or no father whatsoever.

I'm sure while you were growing up you still had the influence of your father, like perhaps when your mother would say "your dad liked that" or such things. In a relationship like the one that so many people are proposing, there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.

My girlfriend was raised by two mothers. She turned out completely fine.

Get over gender roles. This isn't the 19th century we're living in.

I have a question for you. If my girlfriend and I have a child together, we aren't going to force gender roles upon him/her, since we don't live by traditional gender roles. Would you find us to be "fit" parents? It seems like you want one parents to teach the kid to do "manly" things, and a mother in the kitchen and around the house.

[leekohler]

This wasn't my intention. You still had a father, just like everyone else. A child who is brought into a homosexual relationship will either have no mother whatsoever or no father whatsoever.

I'm sure while you were growing up you still had the influence of your father, like perhaps when your mother would say "your dad liked that" or such things. In a relationship like the one that so many people are proposing, there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.

The evidence doesn't support your claim. Gays have been raising kids for decades and significant studies have show that those kids turn out just as well as kids raised by straight people.

[EricNau]

there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.
That's absolutely incorrect. What about grandparents, aunts/uncles, friends, teachers, neighbors? Surely these influences are stronger than the mere reference of a deceased relative (which, I assure you is no substitute for a living parent, as you seem to believe).

[Iscariot]

The evidence doesn't support your claim. Gays have been raising kids for decades and significant studies have show that those kids turn out just as well as kids raised by straight people.

What about if the child was raised inside of a "Monroe Box" until the age of thirty, wherein the child pulls levers to receive food and water; the floor can become electrified, and showers of icy water randomly fall on the subject?

[.Andy]

What about if the child was raised inside of a "Monroe Box" until the age of thirty, wherein the child pulls levers to receive food and water; the floor can become electrified, and showers of icy water randomly fall on the subject?
They end up posting exclusively in the iPhone forum?

[cycocelica]

I am all for gay people. They can do whatever they want and it doesn't bother me. But who the **** comes up with this ****? I hate days like this (see "Don't Buy Gas Day"). They do nothing and prove nothing. But if you want to partake, I won't stop you.

[CalBoy]

(see "Don't Buy Gas Day").

I already went over how this is different from the gay day, but I'm too lazy to type it out again, so here:

And no, this isn't like skipping gas for one day. Certain things like the latte will never be made up for, and the point isn't to weaken a supply market (in the case of the gas boycott) but rather to demonstrate financial strength.

You know the old saying: you don't miss something until it's gone. ;)

[Macaddicttt]

Excuse me? So you think that gay people shouldn't have the right to adopt or draw up binding legal contracts? You don't see that as discriminatory? Are you ********** kidding me?

Banning adoption by gay couples and not allowing people of the same sex to be married is not discriminatory because it has nothing to do with the fact that they are homosexuals, but with who the parties are. Marriage is between a man and a woman. One man and one woman are the legal necessities. It has nothing to do with one's sexuality, merely the person with whom they are trying to enter into these types of contracts.

It's a type of legal contract that requires two people of different sexes, and that is its definition. It's a specific type of contract and it requires specific parties for it to take part. It's sort of like the requirements for being president. You have to be a natural-born citizen and at least 35. Those requirements are not discriminatory to non-natural-born citizens or those under 35, those are merely the conditions that we've put on that office. And marriage is not the only type of contract with restrictions. You don't have the right to form a legal contract of any type with any party no matter what. Conditions must be met. If the people vote to define a marriage as requiring a man and a woman, I do not see why that is discriminatory, but merely the people establishing rules for themselves.

You need to look at the laws and see that nowhere in them is sexuality mentioned. How can they be discriminatory towards homosexuals? I challenge you to write a racist law without using the words "black" or "white" or "race." Now if you want to challenge this based on sexism, that makes more sense. But to charge it as discriminatory based on sexuality makes no legal sense.

[mactastic]

Where, O Where, will I get my hair cut?

Just kidding... the girl who cuts my hair is straight.

[Blue Velvet]

Banning adoption by gay couples and not allowing people of the same sex to be married is not discriminatory because it has nothing to do with the fact that they are homosexuals, but with who the parties are. Marriage is between a man and a woman. One man and one woman are the legal necessities.


Completely circular logic. Voting as a legal right was once withheld from women and black people. Being white and a man, even solely a landowner, were once the legal necessities.

[CalBoy]

I challenge you to write a racist law without using the words "black" or "white" or "race."

BV already pointed out how circular the "logic" is in the rest of your post, so I thought I would point out to you that it is quite easy to write laws to be racist without actually using the words related to 'race.'

For example, Granfather Clauses were very common after the Civil War in the South. They made no mention of race, but merely stated that if your grandfather did not have the right to vote, you didn't. Guess who was magically restricted from voting under that provision?

[Delta608]

I thought this was a thread about gays calling in sick for a day....??

[leekohler]

Banning adoption by gay couples and not allowing people of the same sex to be married is not discriminatory because it has nothing to do with the fact that they are homosexuals, but with who the parties are. Marriage is between a man and a woman. One man and one woman are the legal necessities. It has nothing to do with one's sexuality, merely the person with whom they are trying to enter into these types of contracts.

It's a type of legal contract that requires two people of different sexes, and that is its definition. It's a specific type of contract and it requires specific parties for it to take part. It's sort of like the requirements for being president. You have to be a natural-born citizen and at least 35. Those requirements are not discriminatory to non-natural-born citizens or those under 35, those are merely the conditions that we've put on that office. And marriage is not the only type of contract with restrictions. You don't have the right to form a legal contract of any type with any party no matter what. Conditions must be met. If the people vote to define a marriage as requiring a man and a woman, I do not see why that is discriminatory, but merely the people establishing rules for themselves.

You need to look at the laws and see that nowhere in them is sexuality mentioned. How can they be discriminatory towards homosexuals? I challenge you to write a racist law without using the words "black" or "white" or "race." Now if you want to challenge this based on sexism, that makes more sense. But to charge it as discriminatory based on sexuality makes no legal sense.

That you can't see these laws for what they are is beyond me.

[iJohnHenry]

I thought this was a thread about gays calling in sick for a day....??

It used to be, and that day is Tomorrow. :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

It used to be, and that day is Tomorrow. :rolleyes:

No- it's still OT. We are discussing the issues that are the key motivations for the day. I think that's perfectly relevant.

[CalBoy]

No- it's still OT. We are discussing the issues that are the key motivations for the day. I think that's perfectly relevant.

Yes and no.

Lately every topic even remotely related to gay rights has evolved into one big Prop 8 fight.

It's draining and depressing seeing how many people use such terrible logic in their analysis of why they should deny equal rights, and at the same time comforting to know that they won't be in the majority for much longer.

[leekohler]

Yes and no.

Lately every topic even remotely related to gay rights has evolved into one big Prop 8 fight.

It's draining and depressing seeing how many people use such terrible logic in their analysis of why they should deny equal rights, and at the same time comforting to know that they won't be in the majority for much longer.

I agree. And those people should know better too.

[Rodimus Prime]

I expect to see quite a few people fired over this big time in the right to work states.

Reason being no showing up to work means grounds for automatic termination. Calling in Gay is not an acceptable reason for not showing up to work. So you can not sue for wrongful termination. All the company has to do is show that you are a no call no show. They can request an doctor's note.

This goes double for times like now when you have a job and do not come in. You are very easily replicable.

[iJohnHenry]

Hold up.

So, this a ruse to get Teh Ghey™ OUT of the workforce??

Damn cleaver, these Prop. 8 people.

[Delta608]

Hold up.

So, this a ruse to get Teh Ghey™ OUT of the workforce??

Damn cleaver, these Prop. 8 people.


How appropriate its on a Wednesday to boot !!!! :D :D :D: D

[.Andy]

They can request an doctor's note.
Do you seriously have to produce a doctors note for one days absence?

[CalBoy]

I expect to see quite a few people fired over this big time in the right to work states.

Don't count on it.

Most people will probably call in sick or use a personal day. Those that do "call in gay" literally probably have fairly sympathetic employers who don't want to be seen as against gay rights.

You are very easily replicable.

Depends what your occupation is.

Not every worker is readily replaceable, especially if they have a high level of special training.
How appropriate its on a Wednesday to boot !!!! :D :D :D: D
:confused: I don't get this. Is it to imply that Wednesday is the old day of weddings?

FWIW, the date was chosen because it the same day as the International Day of Human Rights, which is always December 10th.
Do you seriously have to produce a doctors note for one days absence?

No.

Employers only really start to ask for notes in cases where the person is suspected of habitually abusing sick days.

Saying you have the cold one day isn't going to involve doctors.

[SactoGuy18]

I have gay friends at where I work and they all find the idea strange, especially since where I work (a California state government department) has strict rules against ANY form of discrimination.

[rdowns]

:confused: I don't get this. Is it to imply that Wednesday is the old day of weddings?



I think the poster is alluding to Wednesday being called Hump Day.

[iJohnHenry]

Hold your calls, we have a winner. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/hump.gif

[leekohler]

I expect to see quite a few people fired over this big time in the right to work states.

Reason being no showing up to work means grounds for automatic termination. Calling in Gay is not an acceptable reason for not showing up to work. So you can not sue for wrongful termination. All the company has to do is show that you are a no call no show. They can request an doctor's note.

This goes double for times like now when you have a job and do not come in. You are very easily replicable.

Umm... where do you work that you can't take a personal day? I can call in for no reason at all. Usually, I just tell my boss that it's too nice out and I'm gonna play hookie. And trust me, when you're told you run the best team in the company, you're not easily replaced. My company would be very supportive anyway. That said- I took yesterday off instead. I have deadlines tomorrow and would only be screwing myself. There's no one here to do my job.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think the poster is alluding to Wednesday being called Hump Day.

And the fact that Wednesday is statistically the most productive day of the week for the workforce in general.

I think this is a terrible idea, by the way. I can assure you that with the recession in play, many people will lose their jobs today.

SLC

[leekohler]

And the fact that Wednesday is statistically the most productive day of the week for the workforce in general.

I think this is a terrible idea, by the way. I can assure you that with the recession in play, many people will lose their jobs today.

SLC

I bet you not one person loses his/her job.

[gilkisson]

^^
It depends on where you live, I suspect. Back during the "day without Mexicans" protest, our company made a blanket statement: Don't come in that day, don't come back. As a result, no one called in.

This situation is different. The people who call in today are not those whose legal status or right to work can be easily questioned -- therefore, the threat of lawsuits (again, depending on where you are in the country) is much larger.

I suspect a few might indeed be fired (or at least threatened to be fired) over this. And of those, a few will take it (or threaten to take it) to the courts, whereupon their job will magically re-appear.

[leekohler]

^^
It depends on where you live, I suspect. Back during the "day without Mexicans" protest, our company made a blanket statement: Don't come in that day, don't come back. As a result, no one called in.

This situation is different. The people who call in today are not those whose legal status or right to work can be easily questioned -- therefore, the threat of lawsuits (again, depending on where you are in the country) is much larger.

I suspect a few might indeed be fired (or at least threatened to be fired) over this. And of those, a few will take it (or threaten to take it) to the courts, whereupon their job will magically re-appear.

Again- has no one ever heard of personal days? What are these jobs where you can't take a day off?

[SLC Flyfishing]

I bet you not one person loses his/her job.

I'll bet you you're wrong. But we may never know.

SLC

[bradl]

I'll bet you you're wrong. But we may never know.

SLC

Oh, I'm pretty sure you'll know. Either way, the media is going to have some blurb about it, especially with jobs and how it would affect the economy.

And Lee is right. If you're thinking that people are going to lose their job for calling in sick for one day, let alone not contributing anything to the economy for one day, you're highly disillusioned. Sick Day, PTO, Floating holiday.. All of these can be used, and it is in the employee's rights to do so.

EDIT: You do realize that (I assume you live in) Utah is a right to work state, in which the employee has the right to use any of these means to have a day off, right?

BL.

[gilkisson]

Again- has no one ever heard of personal days? What are these jobs where you can't take a day off?

The example I cited referred to Housekeeping in the Hospitality/Resort industry -- notorious for hire 'em/fire 'em.

[bradl]

The example I cited referred to Housekeeping in the Hospitality/Resort industry -- notorious for hire 'em/fire 'em.

But most of them are Union as well, so they would be protected. Plus if the laws for the State they work in prohibit it, they can't do it based on what they are calling in sick for..

BL.

[gilkisson]

But most of them are Union as well, so they would be protected. Plus if the laws for the State they work in prohibit it, they can't do it based on what they are calling in sick for..

BL.

No Unions here. You have to remember, this is the state that just repealed the law banning inter-racial marriage a few years ago...

[Hugh]

This wasn't my intention. You still had a father, just like everyone else. A child who is brought into a homosexual relationship will either have no mother whatsoever or no father whatsoever.

I'm sure while you were growing up you still had the influence of your father, like perhaps when your mother would say "your dad liked that" or such things. In a relationship like the one that so many people are proposing, there is only one gender influence and this to me is completely wrong.

To say that a child who is brought up in an imbalanced relationship like this will not be influenced significantly by it is completely naive.

I thought about this. I was raised by two parents, but my mother raised me. So what does this mean? (And no they didn't split)

Hugh

[Hugh]

Do you seriously have to produce a doctors note for one days absence?

Some places do. I work in a Right to Work state and they can fire you for not showing up, with out an excuse (doctor's note)

Hugh

[Hugh]

Oh, I'm pretty sure you'll know. Either way, the media is going to have some blurb about it, especially with jobs and how it would affect the economy.

And Lee is right. If you're thinking that people are going to lose their job for calling in sick for one day, let alone not contributing anything to the economy for one day, you're highly disillusioned. Sick Day, PTO, Floating holiday.. All of these can be used, and it is in the employee's rights to do so.

EDIT: You do realize that (I assume you live in) Utah is a right to work state, in which the employee has the right to use any of these means to have a day off, right?

BL.

They also have the right to fire you too. Retail one I can think of that might/could do this. Most workers do have have personal days, sick days.

Hugh

[leekohler]

The example I cited referred to Housekeeping in the Hospitality/Resort industry -- notorious for hire 'em/fire 'em.

I was in the restaurant industry for 20 years. We didn't fire people for calling in sick. They didn't have to produce a doctor's note either. The only time we required that was if someone began to make it a habit.

[gilkisson]

I was in the restaurant industry for 20 years. We didn't fire people for calling in sick. They didn't have to produce a doctor's note either. The only time we required that was if someone began to make it a habit.

I don't doubt it. But that's not the case in all industries, in all states. You've got it good, comparatively.

[rdowns]

I don't doubt it. But that's not the case in all industries, in all states. You've got it good, comparatively.

Don't be ridiculous. No employer requires a doctor's note if you call in sick for a day. Why would you go to the doctor unless you were very sick? Everywhere I've ever worked required one if you were out 4 or more days.

[stevento]

So...how did that call in gay day work out?
Is society collapsing yet?

[gilkisson]

Don't be ridiculous. No employer requires a doctor's note if you call in sick for a day. Why would you go to the doctor unless you were very sick? Everywhere I've ever worked required one if you were out 4 or more days.

Ridiculous or not, that is exactly the reality for many workers. I am not defending it, nor am I condoning it. I'm simply stating what I have seen and witnessed.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

So...how did that call in gay day work out?
Is society collapsing yet?

That wasn't the point... it was to show support.

Does your signature seriously point to a page that tells you how you should vote? :confused::rolleyes::(:eek::(

[gilkisson]

So...how did that call in gay day work out?
Is society collapsing yet?

When was that ever the stated goal?

Besides, aren't you the one worried about the "collapse of society"?

[stevento]

I worked at a movie theatre, passing out popcorn and drinks. worst job ever. they were very serious about attendance. if two or three people miss work on the same day, that could cost the business a lot of money because people wont wait forever for popcorn. and that's where they make most of the profits.

i remember if you miss a day for any reason, whether or not you call in, that's a write up. you have to find somebody to take your shifts to miss a day. four write ups and you're fired.


That wasn't the point... it was to show support.

Does your signature seriously point to a page that tells you how you should vote? :confused::rolleyes::(:eek::(
i thought the point was to punish the bigots for voting the wrong way :rolleyes:
and yes it does. it's my homework.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I worked at a movie theatre, passing out popcorn and drinks. worst job ever. they were very serious about attendance. if two or three people miss work on the same day, that could cost the business a lot of money because people wont wait forever for popcorn. and that's where they make most of the profits.

i remember if you miss a day for any reason, whether or not you call in, that's a write up. you have to find somebody to take your shifts to miss a day. four write ups and you're fired.

it's a good thing that this one day wasn't four days...

what was even the point of your post? how does that relate to the topic at all?

[bradl]

I worked at a movie theatre, passing out popcorn and drinks. worst job ever. they were very serious about attendance. if two or three people miss work on the same day, that could cost the business a lot of money because people wont wait forever for popcorn. and that's where they make most of the profits.

i remember if you miss a day for any reason, whether or not you call in, that's a write up. you have to find somebody to take your shifts to miss a day. four write ups and you're fired.

You assume that every person in the country has those same stipulations for where they work; your assumption is wrong, for the same reasons mentioned in the past two pages of this thread.

BL.

[.Andy]

what was even the point of your post? how does that relate to the topic at all?
Gays support cinema income through above average popcorn consumption per capita. It's a well proven fact (see graph).

[gilkisson]

Gays support cinema income through above average popcorn consumption per capita. It's a well proven fact (see graph).

Wow... <<<<<<<<applause>>>>>>>>>

[CalBoy]

i remember if you miss a day for any reason, whether or not you call in, that's a write up.

I believe the law is quite explicit in its defense of people's ability to call in sick.

There's no way you can be written up for calling in sick. It would be illegal.

You can get written up for not waning to come to work for other reasons, but that's not what we were talking about.

[ucfgrad93]

Doesn't look like there was a large turn out.

A daylong work stoppage during which employees were encouraged to "call in gay" to express support for same-sex marriage drew spotty participation nationwide Wednesday, with some gay rights activists praising the concept but questioning its effect.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html

[leekohler]

Doesn't look like there was a large turn out.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html

I actually didn't think it would be. It was well-intentioned, but I think this is a difficult one to pull off.

[dukebound85]

I actually didn't think it would be. It was well-intentioned, but I think this is a difficult one to pull off.

always hard to turn down money and other aspects when you need the job and you like the people you work with id imagine

[leekohler]

always hard to turn down money and other aspects when you need the job and you like the people you work with id imagine

Or if you're me, it's hard to screw yourself by missing your own deadlines. No one is impacted by that but me, really. That's why I didn't participate.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Oh, I'm pretty sure you'll know. Either way, the media is going to have some blurb about it, especially with jobs and how it would affect the economy.

And Lee is right. If you're thinking that people are going to lose their job for calling in sick for one day, let alone not contributing anything to the economy for one day, you're highly disillusioned. Sick Day, PTO, Floating holiday.. All of these can be used, and it is in the employee's rights to do so.

EDIT: You do realize that (I assume you live in) Utah is a right to work state, in which the employee has the right to use any of these means to have a day off, right?

BL.

You're right, not many would be fired for calling in sick. But I thought the whole point was to call in "Gay". For that, a lot of companies were already threatening termination. It's sorta cowardly to call in sick on national "don't go to work if you're Gay day" isn't it. Don't people want their bosses to know exactly why they weren't at work that day? Or are they indeed afraid of losing their jobs?

And I also don't like the implied association with being sick and being gay. Kinda sends a mixed message doesn't it?

SLC

[bradl]

You're right, not many would be fired for calling in sick. But I thought the whole point was to call in "Gay". For that, a lot of companies were already threatening termination. It's sorta cowardly to call in sick on national "don't go to work if you're Gay day" isn't it. Don't people want their bosses to know exactly why they weren't at work that day? Or are they indeed afraid of losing their jobs?


Mixed bag of questions there. They could say one thing or another, because they want the truth to be out, or they want to keep it hidden for some fear of retaliation.. I guess it would all depend on the individual. Personally, as I am not gay, a day of NPR, playlists on my iPhone, lunch I made myself, and gas bought a week ago did fine for me. Will what I've done yesterday have made a difference? Only time will tell..


And I also don't like the implied association with being sick and being gay. Kinda sends a mixed message doesn't it?

SLC

To be honest, there were times when people thought (and some people still think) that gays were people who were sick and needed to be cured of something, whether it be through physical or spiritual means. So while it could be a mixed message, in some opinions, sick and gay could mean or be one in the same.

BL.

[SLC Flyfishing]

...........To be honest, there were times when people thought (and some people still think) that gays were people who were sick and needed to be cured of something, whether it be through physical or spiritual means. So while it could be a mixed message, in some opinions, sick and gay could mean or be one in the same.

BL.

Yeah, the more I think of it, it's kinda fittingly ironic that people would call in gay. Kinda rubs it in the face of those employers who might really think that homosexuality is some sort of disease that needs to be cured.

SLC