@ Quadra - LOL. What an intolerant joke you are. That's not bigotry. that's common sense.
Job qualification are what makes the employee. Not personal choices in lifestyle.
And if you think a boy needs to use a girls bathroom because he wants to pretend he's a girl, then you need help.
If you think a man should be allowed to compete against girl because he thinks he is a girl, then you need help.
Seems to be a pattern there.
Stay out of politics Tim. Stick to making the best products in the world.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not "personal choices in lifestyle" they are immutable characteristics. At least they are closer to being immutable than religion, which the law does not allow you to discriminate against.
Except this concerns basic human rights. It is long overdue and I take my hat off to TC for using his position to encourage decision makers to challenge their own bigotry.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
Why just gays and women? And who, exactly is not being hired because they're gay? How in the world would you prove it?
You almost never see it.
But what it will do is force Boy Scouts to hire men who shouldn't be over boys. Can you imagine hiring a man to sleep in a tent with young girls? Then why would you hire a gay man to sleep in a tent with young boys? Stupid.
To also force churches, whose Bibles teach against homosexuality, to hire homosexuals on staff, completely violating their rights and freedoms.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not "personal choices in lifestyle" they are immutable characteristics. At least they are closer to being immutable than religion, which the law does not allow you to discriminate against.
LOL
They are choices. Nothing more.
The greatest deception of recent times is that homosexuality is like being caucasian, hispanic, asian, etc.
I know which box to check off on the application where it says gender.
I wouldn't hire anybody who is obviously confused and has mental issues and comes with various baggage.
I don't for a moment think you are confused about yourself, but your lack of insight, understanding and empathy would point to some kind of condition, or just lack of people experience. Be that as it may, your previous comment was ridiculous.
So, you wouldn't have hired someone like Sophie Wilson, born Roger Wilson, creator of the instruction set for the first ARM processor, which now has lineage to the A series of Applied chips on the grounds that she is "confused"?
I try and hire people who are brilliant.
I'm not familiar with that person, though I'm sure that there are certain known or famous people that have undergone gender changes. Two that come to mind that I can recall is Wendy Carlos (composer) and one of the brothers who created the Matrix movies. There's also Cher's daughter, but I don't think that she's known for being anything else besides Cher's daughter, so I wouldn't put her on the same list as the other people.
I know which box to check off on the application where it says gender.
The first time I travelled to the US, in 1982, the immigration form still asked for "sex" followed by a blank line (instead of providing checkboxes)... So I put "yes". Immigration took me 5 hours...
Seriously, gender orientation problems, as well as the fact that some people are indeed born without a clear physical disposition are acknowledged facts and often a serious burden for the people affected. Your position is as helpful as telling a person with cancer that he/she/it would be healthier without it. The only reasonable question for an employer should be if a person is qualified and, where required, has a clean record... Everything else should be of no relevance.
But what it will do is force Boy Scouts to hire men who shouldn't be over boys. Can you imagine hiring a man to sleep in a tent with young girls? Then why would you hire a gay man to sleep in a tent with young boys? Stupid.
To also force churches, whose Bibles teach against homosexuality, to hire homosexuals on staff, completely violating their rights and freedoms.
Liberals have no problem with discrimination. They had no problem with the Mozilla CEO being forced out because of his personal beliefs on gay marriage. But if, say, another company forced out an executive because they supported gay marriage liberals would be enraged. You see because they're all for free speech so long as it's speech they agree with.
The greatest deception of recent times is that homosexuality is like being caucasian, hispanic, asian, etc.
It's a complete fallacy.
It's a lifestyle choice.
Not immutable. Not by birth.
Whether science has determined that one way or another, the point remains that one is no more likely to "switch teams" than switch religions. A lot of employment law is about basic fairness.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
Sorry, have to use your post as the quote... really am.
This is not just about HIRING, it is also about firing. In 28 states it still is legal to fire someone for being LGBT. They can say "I'm gay", and the employer can say "your fired", and it is legal.
It is the same thing if you hired 10 people, all in suits and such that you could not tell if they were male, female, or skin color. After working for years all remove and the employer looks at them and say's your fired to anyone darker skinned, and all females. Would the be legal, no, but it is if LGBT. Just due to being who you are. But the EEOC already has female, and race as protected classes, but not LGBT.
This is so stupid... Apple needs to stay out of personal politics. I can't figure out where gays are discriminated against? I'm about sick and tired of the .05% tail wagging the dog.
Ten years ago everybody was saying marriage was on out-dated, obsolete institution. Now everybody wants in on it. WTF? I liked it better when liberals hated marriage.
I don't care if you are gay or straight. Shut up about sex in the workplace and do your job. Then we won't have any issues, sexual harassment, orientation or otherwise.
What makes you think so? Every US enterprise depends on talent from all over the world, and making the environment less hostile will attract more talented people. This should be in everybody's best interest (besides being the right thing in the first place).
But tim has say in his environment, so in reality, he doesn't have to be concerned with that. What he is doing is pushing his morals down the throats of everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario
H
Yes, this will bring Christians out of the woods bashing gay people over shellfish dinner.
And yet the first bash comes from you against Christians with this label of "basher."
Liberals have no problem with discrimination. They had no problem with the Mozilla CEO being forced out because of his personal beliefs on gay marriage. But if, say, another company forced out an executive because they supported gay marriage liberals would be enraged. You see because they're all for free speech so long as it's speech they agree with.
You do see the difference between an opinion that tries to force ones own principles on others, and one that doesn't? Cook does not want you to become gay or doubt your gender, while that Mozilla guy wanted to stop gay people from having the same rights as others. There is nothing intolerant about demanding tolerance, it is the pinnacle of intolerance to demand others to live according to your principles. Huge difference.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
Oh, ignorance on display. "Size" discrimination is rightly outlawed in many jurisdictions. In some places they allow for it if the job is as an entertainer, where appearance is part of the job. But what makes you think a heavy dude is less deserving of a job than a slender one?
Liberals have no problem with discrimination. They had no problem with the Mozilla CEO being forced out because of his personal beliefs on gay marriage. But if, say, another company forced out an executive because they supported gay marriage liberals would be enraged. You see because they're all for free speech so long as it's speech they agree with.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
It is a matter of principle. It would state that officially, in the USA sexual discrimination is a not approved, it is a thing of the past. In the end the discussion comes down to whether a person's sexual orientation is a matter choice. I would argue that anybody who thinks so is basing that on the fact that their own sexual orientation is beyond choice. If not I would dare anybody to chose to change their sexual orientation for a week. Nothing is lost, just one week. Read about another sexual orientation in depth to get to understand what it is all about, then make the decision to be gay, transgender, whatever for a week.
Some bigots are actually so proud of their ignorance that they tell the victim outright. There are other ways to ascertain discrimination as well.
really? I'd love to know all the ways you can ascertain someone's intentions. Unless I come right out and say I refuse to hire you because you're gay how can you prove it. Also, I think religious institutions should be able to hire or not hire whomever they want. This will just pave the way for, say, Catholic Churches to be forced to hire gay men as priests.
Comments
@ Quadra - LOL. What an intolerant joke you are. That's not bigotry. that's common sense.
Job qualification are what makes the employee. Not personal choices in lifestyle.
And if you think a boy needs to use a girls bathroom because he wants to pretend he's a girl, then you need help.
If you think a man should be allowed to compete against girl because he thinks he is a girl, then you need help.
Seems to be a pattern there.
Stay out of politics Tim. Stick to making the best products in the world.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not "personal choices in lifestyle" they are immutable characteristics. At least they are closer to being immutable than religion, which the law does not allow you to discriminate against.
Why just gays and women? And who, exactly is not being hired because they're gay? How in the world would you prove it?
You almost never see it.
But what it will do is force Boy Scouts to hire men who shouldn't be over boys. Can you imagine hiring a man to sleep in a tent with young girls? Then why would you hire a gay man to sleep in a tent with young boys? Stupid.
To also force churches, whose Bibles teach against homosexuality, to hire homosexuals on staff, completely violating their rights and freedoms.
Can't we all just get along?
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not "personal choices in lifestyle" they are immutable characteristics. At least they are closer to being immutable than religion, which the law does not allow you to discriminate against.
LOL
They are choices. Nothing more.
The greatest deception of recent times is that homosexuality is like being caucasian, hispanic, asian, etc.
It's a complete fallacy.
It's a lifestyle choice.
Not immutable. Not by birth.
I'm not the one who's confused here.
I know which box to check off on the application where it says gender.
I wouldn't hire anybody who is obviously confused and has mental issues and comes with various baggage.
I don't for a moment think you are confused about yourself, but your lack of insight, understanding and empathy would point to some kind of condition, or just lack of people experience. Be that as it may, your previous comment was ridiculous.
Can't we all just get along?
It would be fine. We should.
But when people start shoving their beliefs down everyones throats with the law, then it gets tense.
ie: Cook urging Congress to pave the way for churches to hire gays as pastors... violating the rights and freedoms of those churches.
So, you wouldn't have hired someone like Sophie Wilson, born Roger Wilson, creator of the instruction set for the first ARM processor, which now has lineage to the A series of Applied chips on the grounds that she is "confused"?
I try and hire people who are brilliant.
I'm not familiar with that person, though I'm sure that there are certain known or famous people that have undergone gender changes. Two that come to mind that I can recall is Wendy Carlos (composer) and one of the brothers who created the Matrix movies. There's also Cher's daughter, but I don't think that she's known for being anything else besides Cher's daughter, so I wouldn't put her on the same list as the other people.
The first time I travelled to the US, in 1982, the immigration form still asked for "sex" followed by a blank line (instead of providing checkboxes)... So I put "yes". Immigration took me 5 hours...
Seriously, gender orientation problems, as well as the fact that some people are indeed born without a clear physical disposition are acknowledged facts and often a serious burden for the people affected. Your position is as helpful as telling a person with cancer that he/she/it would be healthier without it. The only reasonable question for an employer should be if a person is qualified and, where required, has a clean record... Everything else should be of no relevance.
LOL
They are choices. Nothing more.
The greatest deception of recent times is that homosexuality is like being caucasian, hispanic, asian, etc.
It's a complete fallacy.
It's a lifestyle choice.
Not immutable. Not by birth.
Whether science has determined that one way or another, the point remains that one is no more likely to "switch teams" than switch religions. A lot of employment law is about basic fairness.
Why just gays and women? And who, exactly is not being hired because they're gay? How in the world would you prove it?
Some bigots are actually so proud of their ignorance that they tell the victim outright. There are other ways to ascertain discrimination as well.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
Sorry, have to use your post as the quote... really am.
This is not just about HIRING, it is also about firing. In 28 states it still is legal to fire someone for being LGBT. They can say "I'm gay", and the employer can say "your fired", and it is legal.
It is the same thing if you hired 10 people, all in suits and such that you could not tell if they were male, female, or skin color. After working for years all remove and the employer looks at them and say's your fired to anyone darker skinned, and all females. Would the be legal, no, but it is if LGBT. Just due to being who you are. But the EEOC already has female, and race as protected classes, but not LGBT.
So ENDA needs to be passed for this reason.Ten years ago everybody was saying marriage was on out-dated, obsolete institution. Now everybody wants in on it. WTF? I liked it better when liberals hated marriage.
I don't care if you are gay or straight. Shut up about sex in the workplace and do your job. Then we won't have any issues, sexual harassment, orientation or otherwise.
What makes you think so? Every US enterprise depends on talent from all over the world, and making the environment less hostile will attract more talented people. This should be in everybody's best interest (besides being the right thing in the first place).
But tim has say in his environment, so in reality, he doesn't have to be concerned with that. What he is doing is pushing his morals down the throats of everyone else.
H
Yes, this will bring Christians out of the woods bashing gay people over shellfish dinner.
And yet the first bash comes from you against Christians with this label of "basher."
You do see the difference between an opinion that tries to force ones own principles on others, and one that doesn't? Cook does not want you to become gay or doubt your gender, while that Mozilla guy wanted to stop gay people from having the same rights as others. There is nothing intolerant about demanding tolerance, it is the pinnacle of intolerance to demand others to live according to your principles. Huge difference.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
Oh, ignorance on display. "Size" discrimination is rightly outlawed in many jurisdictions. In some places they allow for it if the job is as an entertainer, where appearance is part of the job. But what makes you think a heavy dude is less deserving of a job than a slender one?
Liberals have no problem with discrimination. They had no problem with the Mozilla CEO being forced out because of his personal beliefs on gay marriage. But if, say, another company forced out an executive because they supported gay marriage liberals would be enraged. You see because they're all for free speech so long as it's speech they agree with.
Excellent post.
Explain to me how a gay or lesbian individual would prove they were not hired for a job based on their sexual orientation. And I would imagine people don't get hired for positions for all kinds of reasons all the time. What if two equally qualified women applied for a position but the women who was tall and skinny was hired over the shorter, fatter woman. Should the latter be allowed to sue for discrimination? And how would you prove it?
It is a matter of principle. It would state that officially, in the USA sexual discrimination is a not approved, it is a thing of the past. In the end the discussion comes down to whether a person's sexual orientation is a matter choice. I would argue that anybody who thinks so is basing that on the fact that their own sexual orientation is beyond choice. If not I would dare anybody to chose to change their sexual orientation for a week. Nothing is lost, just one week. Read about another sexual orientation in depth to get to understand what it is all about, then make the decision to be gay, transgender, whatever for a week.