or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HSLDA - new low - Page 2

post #21 of 47

My money, my company, my life, my choice!

“As for freedom... perhaps you're leaving your children with the freedom to be free from discrimination. Quite a worthy goal, don't you think?”

No, I’m leaving them an America that will someday lead them into “captivity” a government that tells them when, where and how they can live. That’s sad! I hardly think that is a worthy goal! People who can’t think and make a decision for themselves…what would life be like. I love that my children don’t always agree with me, that they have minds of their own. To tell them they have to think a certain way, to live a certain way because everyone else “says” it’s the right way.
Where’s the cliff!
People need choice, people are different by design, by nature, not all people get along. You can pretend that it “works” in Canada, the economy is poor and taxes are 50 percent plus on businesses…more choices would open more businesses.

Again, if I put my own money and life on the line to open a business I want the right to choose who will work for me. I don’t see why that is a problem. The fact that it is a problem for you clearly reflect that you prefer to be told how to live your life, but for those of us who wish to live our own life, make our own decisions this law is yet another claim on our freedoms. This law doesn’t affect people who don’t care about their right to choose, so my “choice and freedoms” are taken away. That seem to be OK!

There are already laws in place to protect “all” people from discrimination. You can’t fire based on sexual orientation, you can’t fire based on age, most business keep files of discipline on their employees.

My money, my company, my life, my choice!

Have a nice afternoon!
post #22 of 47
This law isn't telling businesses who they have to hire. An applicant has to be qualified in the first place. It's not as though they are planning on force feeding employees to companies.
post #23 of 47
Actually, Charis, there is no law protecting sexual orientation. Age, race, gender, yes, but not sexual orientation.

I honestly don't see why it is such a big issue to you. I mean, I really don't care what my coworkers do after work. It's none of my business and I'm scratching my head as to why any employer would need to know that.









Side note - I'm wondering, would this affect the military any?
post #24 of 47
Well Charis, it honestly doesn't affect me or my family members that own businesses. They aren't bigots. They hire according to skills, not according to sexual orientation or gender or any of those other things that bigot use as excuses to not hire or retain somebody. Nobody is telling them who to hire. It is just a law that needs to be in place because some people can't be decent human beings unless it is required by law.
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3momkmb View Post
Just another, in a long list, of reasons I will never join this organization. :
That's the only bad thing I know about them and it's enough to stay away. That is ridiculous! What is with this anti-gay movement lately. It seems that hatred is in full-force right now. We've got an anti-gay group giving a speech at our local convention center and I'm just infuriated at the ignorance of allowing these hate-groups to be here! ARGH. I'm not even lesbian and I'm mad, I can't imagine if I were!

Thanks for letting us know what they're up to.
Lisa
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa49 View Post
That's the only bad thing I know about them and it's enough to stay away. That is ridiculous! What is with this anti-gay movement lately. It seems that hatred is in full-force right now. We've got an anti-gay group giving a speech at our local convention center and I'm just infuriated at the ignorance of allowing these hate-groups to be here! ARGH. I'm not even lesbian and I'm mad, I can't imagine if I were!

Thanks for letting us know what they're up to.
Lisa
My very thoughts. I know it's always been a hot topic, but I've seen probably 4 or 5 debates just on the few message boards I frequent just in the last two months. It's bizarre how touchy this is becoming all of a sudden.
post #27 of 47
Quote:
ENDA would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This would mean that a business or organization with more than 15 employees would be barred by federal law from refusing to hire a person because of the person’s sexual orientation.
That's all it does. If you're hiring an accountant and the person can't add, you don't have to hire them just because they're gay.

Quote:
At worst, it could be used to force religious organizations such as HSLDA, large homeschool support groups or co-ops that employ individuals, Christian publishing companies or bookstores, and other organizations to hire individuals whose sexual orientation violates the organization’s beliefs.
Yes, definitely HSLDA looking out for themselves as usual.
post #28 of 47
Charis, lets say you have a business and you're currently taking applications.

Applicant one is wonderful, fully qualified, on time.

Applicant two is ok, not qualified and late.

Who would you hire?

Now what if it came out during the interview that applicant one was gay/lesbian? Who would you hire now?
post #29 of 47
:

It makes me unbearably sad that we live in a world where a bill like this has to even be created.

I've never done any real looking into the HSLDA, but I always thought they were benevolent enough. Thank you for posting this.
post #30 of 47
Just a reminder of our User Agreement :
Quote:
We do not tolerate any type of discrimination in the discussions, including but not limited to racism, heterosexism, classism, religious bigotry, or discrimination toward the disabled.
Discrimating against a person because he or she identifies as other than heterosexual is heterosexism, and support for this viewpoint is not allowed here.

Thanks,

Dar
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa49 View Post
What is with this anti-gay movement lately. It seems that hatred is in full-force right now.
I think it has to do with it being a time of heavy stresses of all sorts - people tend to look for scapegoats when they're in pain of their own. It's just so strange that hatred is so widely accepted though - you'd think it would be something people would be self-conscious about.

- Lillian
post #32 of 47
Charis, I notice that you've never posted anything to MDC except for your posts in this thread. Are you interested in being part of the community here, or just coming in to promote your particular political agenda?
post #33 of 47
I think it's stupid, and no business of HSLDA's but as an employer, I hate the idea that I'd be forced to hire someone I didn't want to- regardless of the reason. employment should be based on the merits of the individual, no matter who they are.
post #34 of 47
Quote:
I am a loving, joyful human being. I care for all people. I simply prefer to keep the government out of my business, personal and otherwise. More laws, more red tape, less freedom. You can pretend that this law will help a certain group, but it won’t, it will only line the pockets of lawyers.
Do you feel the same way about any equal protection laws - you feel businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone, racial minorities, women, Pagans, the disabled, single parents, anyone for any reason?

What about the government? Should state and federal employers be allowed the same "freedom of choice"?
post #35 of 47
I'm concerned about how such laws are going to be enforced.

For instance, while it's fine to give a guideline that business owners shouldn't discriminate according to sexual preference in hiring -- how do you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is (or isn't) happening?

What if someone has the perfect resume, more perfect than anyone else's -- but I, the business owner, just happen to click really well with one of the other applicants. I feel this applicant has qualities and a vision that will really help my business, and the lack of training or experience can be easily made up (in my opinion).

If I'm a private business owner -- not government-funded -- shouldn't it be at my discretion whether I choose someone based on how we get along in the interview, rather than based on that person's previous education and experience?

The rough thing is that for the other legally-protected groups, you can usually tell at the interview if the most-qualified-on-paper person is in one of these groups. So if the most qualified person happens to be from a racial minority, but you happen to like another applicant better -- well, you're probably still going to feel legally forced to go with the person who's better on paper.

If you decide to go with the person that your hunches are telling you is the better person for your company, chances are you're going to fabricate something to document WHY the person you chose is more qualified, even though s/he's not, just to cover your butt in case of a suit later.

But with sexual orientation -- you may have NO IDEA of the sexual preference of the most qualified person, who you're passing over in favor of the one you like better. I guess it'll just pressure business-owners to get really good at creating paper-trails to justify each and every choice.
post #36 of 47
I don't see it helping, only hurting.
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Z View Post
Christian schools/co-ops/groups would not be able to forbid hiring "the gays" to teach their kids. Because, ya know, we have to protect our kids from catching "the gay".
Again, if someone sets up a private school, or a church for that matter, shouldn't that person be able to hire individuals who support the statement of beliefs of his/her organization?

Let's approach this in a different way: suppose you are paying thousands of dollars a year to send your children to a private, secular school that has the stated mission of helping students appreciate diversity, all kinds of diversity.

What if you found out your child's math teacher was a member of a racial supremacist group? Or even a Christian fundamentalist group that's actively involved in fighting causes you believe in, like gay rights ... oh, and suppose you and your children even saw this teacher out picketing your local Family Planning clinic?

I realize none of these activities would preclude someone being able to teach in the public school system (well, maybe being part of a racial-supremacist group would, I'm not sure) --

But do you also feel that after you pay good money to send your child to a school that's free from bigotry and intolerance, you still have no right to speak up against a teacher who you perceive as bigoted and intolerant, even if he is really good at teaching math, and even if (as far as you know) he never expresses his views on abortion and gay rights to the students?

I realize you're saying, "Of course any parent has a right to speak up against any teacher, and ask for that teacher to be fired!" But what if "speaking up" was ALL you had the right to do ... because the school administrators couldn't fire said teacher simply based on his promotion of causes that were objectionable to the school founders.

What if practically ALL the parents objected to this teacher staying on staff, and started withdrawing their children from the school? Well, I guess then the school would fold and the teacher would be out of a job, anyway.

Now I've talked myself into a corner! I've just realized that this law, if passed, is really going to help the homeschooling cause way more than it hurts!

Because all (or most of) the fundamentalist Christian parents who are now paying big money to send their children to fundamentalist Christian schools are likely to say, "Well, heck, if paying all that tuition doesn't ensure that our children's teachers will share our beliefs -- we might as well keep our money and homeschool!"
post #38 of 47
But sexual orientation isn't about someone's beliefs, or actions, or "lifestyle." It's something intrinsic to a person, like their race or gender or age. It's not a choice, like choosing to picket a clinic or choosing to join a racist organization.

And there's nothing in these kinds of laws that says you can't hire someone who seems to "fit" better with your company, or has the right "vision"... unless he "fits" because he's straight... or white... or a man.

Dar
post #39 of 47
I think there are two ways this can be looked at. If you are a person that believes there should be no legislation on the matter of discrimination at all, which includes laws regarding discrimination based on sex, age, race, etc., then I can see the stance that this shouldn't pass. (I don't agree with it in the least, but I can appreciate that the view is perhaps coming from something other than bigotry.) However, if you feel that some discrimination is wrong and others not, then I really can't get behind that as being the least bit sensible or appropriate.
post #40 of 47
Clarifying:
You CAN be fired for being gay with that as the explicit reason in the U.S. Not that ENDA would change these firings, just the explicit reason given to the employee.

Another interesting point: from a homeschool perspective, we are a married gay couple for whom employment issues such as health insurance may mean that we are able to homeschool or not, since we cannot bank on having one SAHM and the glorious "freedom" to take the kiddos to the ER should they need it, the pay for private health insurance, life insurance (no social security for spouse or kids birthed by the "other" parent,"), and a whole gamut of gay stuff. Even going to buy the family pass at the zoo for homeschool purposes takes on new and expensive meaning. So heterosexism greatly affects gay HS families, and its eradication is obviously of interest to HS families.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at Home and Beyond