It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Well, even thought he passed a law saying Gays can marry legally he certainly won't let them hold a job. This is what I find strange.

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

www.misleader.org...

So what gives? This is why I'm not voting for Bush again!




posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
That article took a lot of information out of context. If you read the sources, it explains that Bush, in fact, didn't do anything. Someone was interpreting a law to see if gays were covered by it.



This is new Special Counsel Scott Blochs 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.



Edit:
And the person who did this is not a judge or anything, he's a special counsul, like Ken Starr was. Just because one individual says something doesn't make it true.


[Edited on 3-23-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I could never understand the governments obsesion with Gay sex.

After all they been giving it to us up the ass for years


I guess the tought of someone else doing it to us breaks their heart



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I've been keeping up on this. It's a sad day in our times anymore. I wonder if a federal employee can be fired for being a dumb, lying, backstabbing, SOB from Texas? He and his whole appointed SOB's make me sick.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Mac: We tried in the 90s (except for the Texas part), and it didn't take.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Is that a reference to a Democrat? It's no skin off my back....they're all dumb, lying backstabbers...republican or democrat. It's all a matter of if you want war or social services.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
It was a reference to a Clinton.

The fact of the matter is, though, that Bush isn't the one saying gays can be fired for being gay.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   


Is that a reference to a Democrat? It's no skin off my back....they're all dumb, lying backstabbers...republican or democrat. It's all a matter of if you want war or social services.



Vote Libertarian then you wont get either.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
When was this law passed allowing gays to wed? Just wondering.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   


When was this law passed allowing gays to wed? Just wondering.



I could be wrong but I think that some states unlike here ( Arkansas Law states a man and a woman) dont prohibit it by law.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Well, that would be a far cry from Bush passing a law allowing it.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix
Well, that would be a far cry from Bush passing a law allowing it.


I don't think that's going to happen. It's these "rebel" states like Mass and Cali who are making sure of that. I mean, what's the deal? First both of them start issuing IDs and drivers liscenses to illegal aliens, and then they say, despite federal law, that they are going to allow gay marrages. Can a state be put in jail?



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   


Well, that would be a far cry from Bush passing a law allowing it.



Well it wouldnt be bush passing a law to allow under those curcumstances they would just have to do nothing. It would be legal.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by kramtronix
Well, that would be a far cry from Bush passing a law allowing it.


I don't think that's going to happen. It's these "rebel" states like Mass and Cali who are making sure of that. I mean, what's the deal? First both of them start issuing IDs and drivers liscenses to illegal aliens, and then they say, despite federal law, that they are going to allow gay marrages. Can a state be put in jail?



Is there a Federal law against it?

BY they way....... Hi JJ long time no see.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Hi there, Amuk, I've missed you all so much, but couldn't find my password!

I actually don't know if there's a law disallowing it. If anyone could get the text of federal marrige law, I'd be interested to read it.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Hi there, Amuk, I've missed you all so much, but couldn't find my password!

I actually don't know if there's a law disallowing it. If anyone could get the text of federal marrige law, I'd be interested to read it.



Thats my point I dont either. Here State Law has forever stated one man and one woman, but I dont know about the other states.

To me if there werent a law against it it would be legal which is what I think some states are arguing.

Again I could be wrong and I am sure I will hear about it if I am.....LOL


Glad to have you back



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Isn't there a federal defense of marriage act? I think it already states that marriage is a union between a man and woman. I could be wrong but I'm not positive.




top topics



 
0

log in

join