Virginia attorney general to colleges: End gay protections

Virginia attorney general to colleges: End gay protections

www.washingtonpost.com

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has urged the state's public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing in a letter sent to each school that their boards of visitors had no legal authority to adopt such statements.

In his most aggressive initiative on conservative social issues since taking office in January, Cuccinelli (R) wrote in the letter sent Thursday that only the General Assembly can extend legal protections to gay state employees, students and others -- a move the legislature has repeatedly declined to take as recently as this week.

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

While the Democrats my have the backbones of jellyfish...the Republicans have neither compassion nor soul.

This hits close to home. I live in Virginia...a state which despite going for Obama...the conservatives and religious wrong have had a stranglehold on for decades.

I am not sure he is even correct about this. Employers...state or otherwise have the right to protect whomsoever they please as I understand it. Of course I could be wrong.

Still...the level of hatred the religious wrong have for gays is greater in general than than the overall population and most people I feel would say that this is wrong.

At least I hope so.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

Discrimination is Discrimination, reglardless of if it's for gays, or blacks or jews for that matter.

Everybody should be protected from discrimination. Disagreement is one thing, but to prevent somebody from doing something or giving them flack for being who they are is just wrong.

We shouln't need laws for these sorts of things, it should just be common sense.

~Keeper

We want you to fear. We will instill it, and if you stop us, we'll get you too.

Nice.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Think that should apply to business owners as well?

Does the business owner enjoy a right of freedom to associate or not to associate/hire anyone he chooses for whatever reason necessary?

I just stumbledupon this blog about heterosexual vs Gay rights and it says it all.

# I got to marry the person I love;
# I can’t be fired from my job for being heterosexual;
# I never was thrown out of school for being my heterosexual self;
# If I was in the military, I could openly discuss my sexuality and not be fired;
# Mormons will never rally together to deny me anything;
# The Pope will never denounce me for being heterosexual;
# I get every Social Security benefit available;
# My marriage is accepted in all 50 states;
# My heterosexuality would never get in the way of my ability to adopt;
# No one will commit violence against me, or murder me for being heterosexual.
# Entertainers don’t insult me or incite violence against me for being heterosexual;

Hell, there’s a lot more things my heterosexuality gets me. I didn’t even include the more than 1,000 rights and benefits bestowed upon me for being allowed to marry. Did you know that my Spouse’s flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act? Or that I have the Right to continue living on land purchased from my spouse by the National Park Service when easement is granted to my spouse? Neither did I, but I have those rights, as well.

Oh yeah, and I’ll save roughly $400,000 by being heterosexual.

Basically, being a heterosexual means I have so many more rights than gays & lesbians that there are a #load of rights and benefits I have that I don’t even use or need. And I don’t have to march, protest or fight for any of them.

open.salon.com...

And you as a heterosexual have a say in the final life decisions of your partner.

I knew a man whose rabidly funnymentalist parents disowned him for being gay and refused to have anything to do with him. He died from an infection that settled in around the valves of his heart. His parents even refused to give his lover the right to bury him so his grieving partner had to go before a judge and beg for the right.

That is so wrong.

It will certainly be interesting to see the reactions when I get back to school tomorrow. I go to a public university in Virginia with a large gay population, so I'm expecting at least one rally next week.

reply to post by brainwrek


If an employer was smart, he would just say that the employee is not the kind of caliber he wants at his business.

There is no need to ever tell them it's because they were gay. If you do, then you are discriminating.

I'm a business owner and that's what I would do.

If your going to discriminate don't tell the person applying that you are, cause then you are breaking the law.

~Keeper

And the notion of a constitutional amendment to deny gay marriage or any other rights heterosexuals take for granted is just plain obscene...

to date the constitution has been used to extend rights not to deny them and if such an amendment actually passed it would set a dangerous precedent.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the state colleges either comply or refuse.

Personally I think most will refuse.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

reply to post by iMacFanatic


Though many of you may disagree with him, what the attorney general said seems legally correct. First he is addressing STATE colleges. Second, no company or institution has a right to create a special class of citizens. Really you could make a case that neither does the government based on what the constitution says. The constitution says that rights must be fairly distributed accross the entire spectrum of the population.

A good example would be that if a company has the right to create a special class of people to give special rights to then theoretically they could create a special class of people who have blue eyes and this special class could get paid a 20% premium over every other class of worker.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by iMacFanatic

 

Really you could make a case that neither does the government based on what the constitution says. The constitution says that rights must be fairly distributed accross the entire spectrum of the population.

Exactly.

Based on that argument to deny someone the same rights everyone else has simply because they are gay is inherently unconstitutional...

I mean common law marriages have more rights than gays do in regards to anti discrimination. And in all reality gays are not demanding anything more than anyone else has...they just want their relationships to be acknowledged, to be legal and binding with the same rights as heterosexual marriages do.

I still think that the colleges will refuse or sue.

I am personally sick and tired of the religious wrong trying to shove their norms down everybody else's throat.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


I do see where you are coming from. My opinion is that government should have never interferred with marriage in the first place. There should be no such thing as legal marriage. There should be a religious ceremony called marriage.

They should have never given special rights to married couples, becase it is unfair to gays, to people living together, to single people, etc...

So really the answer is to take marriage out of the hands of government and put it back in its original hands.. religious institutions and/or the individuals getting married.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Sorry, I beg to differ on your statement

If your going to discriminate don't tell the person applying that you are, cause then you are breaking the law.

If one intends to discriminate on the basis of a prohibited condition, then one breaks the law - there's no contingency on notifying the party being discriminated against.

On the other hand your previous quote was right on target:

Discrimination is Discrimination, reglardless of if it's for gays, or blacks or jews for that matter.

We shouln't need laws for these sorts of things, it should just be common sense.

We shouldn't need laws but as you pointed out, some people need to be told or shown where "the line" is. Just saying.

gj


[edit on 6-3-2010 by ganjoa]

Sorry but until they do away with Affermative Action there should be ZERO basis for discrimination suits by ANYONE. AA descriminates against people every single day, but because the minority are now the ones being cut the breaks, its somehow ok? Notice you never see anyone in the minority up in arms over a majority candidate getting overlooked because he/she doesn't meet the minority standard. Hypocrites...

Its all BS...

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Sorry, I beg to differ on your statement

If your going to discriminate don't tell the person applying that you are, cause then you are breaking the law.

If one intends to discriminate on the basis of a prohibited condition, then one breaks the law - there's no contingency on notifying the party being discriminated against.

On the other hand your previous quote was right on target:

Discrimination is Discrimination, reglardless of if it's for gays, or blacks or jews for that matter.

We shouln't need laws for these sorts of things, it should just be common sense.

We shouldn't need laws but as you pointed out, some people need to be told or shown where "the line" is. Just saying.

gj

[edit on 6-3-2010 by ganjoa]

OHh I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was attempting to imply, let's use an example.

An african american man comes into my business and applies for a job. He's qualified, but I don't like the fact that he is black, so I don't hire him. If he ever called to asked why he was not hired, I'm NOT going to say it's because he was black.

I'm gonna say because I found a better qualified candidate. See the difference?

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Just asking, but are you saying it is alright to discriminate against black people, but not alright to discriminate against gay people, or are you saying its alright to discriminate against whoever we want to as long as we make up another reason so we don't get busted by the man?

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Just asking, but are you saying it is alright to discriminate against black people, but not alright to discriminate against gay people, or are you saying its alright to discriminate against whoever we want to as long as we make up another reason so we don't get busted by the man?

God no, I would never consider that...EVER. I own 3 businesses and the better qualified person gets hired.

I am color blind when it comes to race or attributes that DO NOT affect the persons ability to do the job.

I was just saying this is how "smart" bigot employers could discriminate without getting themselves in legal trouble.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I have read other posts of yours and I didn't think you were racist, but I just wanted to clarify since that is kind of how I thought your post might get interpreted. Glad to hear you are a good guy.

reply to post by iMacFanatic


interesting list
but he forgot one
to be in a relationship that is able to procreate.

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Think that should apply to business owners as well?

Does the business owner enjoy a right of freedom to associate or not to associate/hire anyone he chooses for whatever reason necessary?

I'm also a business owner and it's nobodys business who, what, or why I hire anyone. But I can tell you straight up...."I don't hire Mooks"

You know who you are so don't even apply!!


S&F



Topic.....I see a real concerted movement back to the old "moral Majority" style of thinking.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by whaaa]