Sykt.

[Liquid Skin]

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" (1) as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

 

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." (2) While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. (3)

 

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation." (4)

 

November can't get here soon enough.

 

Sources:

1. Debates, 10/11/2000.

 

2. "OSC to study whether bias law covers gays", Federal Times, 03/15/2004,

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1232616&l=23802.

 

3. "Gay Rights Information Taken Off Site", Washington Post, 02/18/2004,

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1232616&l=23803.

 

4. "Special Counsel Under Scrutiny", Washington Post, 02/23/2004,

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1232616&l=23804.

 

 

 

Jeg er fullstendig målløs..

[Suppelars2k]

So much for "the land of the free". Uffameg. Skjønner at enkelte er imot ekteskap blandt homofile også videre, men dette er bare rett og slett litt FOR sykt.

 

Kanskje dette er er dråpen som skal til for å få Mr. Gorillabush ut av Det Hvite Huset? La oss håpe at amerikanere flest registrerer det og GJØR NOE MED DET, og faktisk stemmer demokratisk. Dette er uholdbart.

[FreeBSD]

Tror at busken tvert imot vinner stort på denne skepsisen mot en minioritet, desverre.

 

"The land of the free" - de ønomisk frie, oversetter vi det til, tror jeg.

[iDude]

Herrejemini... Høres for vanvittig ut til å være sant, selv fra den kanten...

[Den Røde Tsar]

Holder at en gjør noe med det...

[Gjest medlem-23990]

Wow, hvor fant du den, Democratic Underground? Hehe.

Har aldri hørt om dette før, og det ser litt fake ut.

Hvis det ikke var fake, så hadde Andrew Sullivan skrevet en hel del om det, og det har han ikke.

 

En setning som lukter råttent her er denne:

 

his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation

 

Ehm, administrasjonen kan ikke gjøre noe slikt, den har ingen slik makt.

 

Hvis du leser Federal Times spalten så nevner den ikke Bush og administrasjonen en eneste gang...

 

Tror nok at dere har nok en gang blitt SUCKERED av venstre-vridd propganda, som alltid.

 

[Suppelars2k]

Se signatur.

[lodott]

Syk topic i det minste..

[Gjest medlem-23990]

Se signatur.

Se at hele topicen er tull og detter sammen under sin egen vekt.

Farlig å innrømme at dette er et båtlass med tull Haltan?

[Suppelars2k]

Seixon da.

 

For det første, jeg startet ikke topicen, så ikke still meg ansvarlig.

 

For det andre, jeg har ikke engang lest psoten din, fordi jeg ikke gadd og skal bysselalle nå

 

For det tredje, jeg har nettopp diskutert dette på et utenlandsk forum, og gidder egentlig ikke kaste meg i enda en runde.

 

For det fjerde og viktigste: Kildekritikk er viktig, helt riktig. Hvorvidt man skal være fryktelig kritiske til denne eller ikke, er en annen sak. Jeg forholder meg nokså i bakgrunnen til noen slår i bordet med beviser, være det seg for, eller imot. Joda seixon, du er kildekritisk, fair enough, men jeg ser ingen grunn til at jeg skal tro det motsatte av topic her, med mindre du kan motbevise det. Du har noen gode poenger, bare fryktelig synd to av linkene er døde

 

Sov ellers søtt

Endret 23. mars 2004 av HalTan

[Gjest medlem-23990]

1. Administrasjonen i USA kan ikke bestemme noe sånn som denne greien hevder. Det i seg selv tyder på at det er bullshit.

 

2. Federal Times spalten nevner ikke Bush eller administrasjonen en eneste gang. Den snakker heller om tolkninger av eksisterende lover angående seksualitet, osv. Ikke noen nye lover som Bush & Co har funnet på...

 

Trenger ikke mer enn de to punktene for å se at det er bullshit.

[Suppelars2k]

SOM SAGT: du har noen svært gode poenger, men jeg avventer fremdeles en avklaring her.

 

Anyways, nå blir jeg bortevekk

Endret 23. mars 2004 av HalTan

[Suppelars2k]

En fyr på et utenlands forum betalte faktisk de 3 dollarene for å få lese teksten.

 

Fra the washington post.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

 

Special Counsel Under Scrutiny

By Stephen Barr

The Washington Post

 

Senators Concerned He Removed Agency's References to Sexual Orientation Bias

 

Four senators have expressed concern that the actions of a new Republican appointee, who pulled references to discrimination based on sexual orientation off an agency's Internet site, are at odds with statements he made as part of his confirmation hearing.

 

Scott J. Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, recently removed references about sexual orientation discrimination from a complaint form and an educational pamphlet for federal employees that were posted on the agency's Web pages. The independent agency's mission is to protect federal whistleblowers and government workers from retributions in the workplace, and Bloch's action brought protests from gay rights groups.

 

The senators, in a letter to Bloch, said the removal of the reference "appears inconsistent" with assurances that Bloch, as a presidential nominee, gave the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

 

"During the confirmation process, you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation," the senators wrote. "We are concerned that the recent changes to OSC publications might give federal employees the opposite impression and we ask that you reaffirm your previously stated commitment and advise us of steps you will take to inform federal employees of their rights and remedies under the law."

 

The letter, dated Feb. 19, was organized by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and also signed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the committee chairman, and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), the panel's ranking Democrat. The committee oversees Bloch's office.

 

Bloch said his action was "not inconsistent" with his statements last year to the committee. "I remain committed to enforcement of the statutes," he said in a telephone interview Friday.

 

He said he removed references to sexual orientation discrimination because he is uncertain whether a provision of civil service law applies to federal workers who claim unfair treatment because they are gay, bisexual or heterosexual. He said the review is intended to determine whether the agency has correctly interpreted the law.

 

The law has been taken to mean that a worker's off-duty behavior cannot be used as a justification for dismissal, demotion or discipline unless it hampers job performance or interferes with the work of others.

 

Pulling such references off the Web site "is no way a statement that this office is retreating from any employee rights, or enforcement of employee rights," Bloch said.

 

During his confirmation, Bloch was asked to respond in writing to a series of questions from Akaka.

 

At one point, Bloch said that "sexual conduct can clearly fall within the definition of conduct that is not adverse to the on-the-job performance of an employee, applicant or performance of others. I will not be selective in enforcement based on the orientation of an individual whose personal sexual conduct is at issue, and assure you that I will enforce the law as passed by Congress and interpreted by the Courts with complete impartiality."

 

Akaka asked, "Do you agree with the advice provided by OSC that, if 'Supervisor Joe fires Employee Jack because he saw Employee Jack at a local Gay Pride Day event,' such firing constitutes an example of discrimination against the employee that is unlawful?"

 

Bloch said cases must be judged on specific facts, but added that he agreed such a firing would be prohibited by the law.

 

"Conduct such as being at a Gay Pride event, by itself, would not, in my view, affect job performance, and employers would not be able to say that being at such an event will discredit the agency or established a basis to discriminate because it makes other people uncomfortable. The federal workforce is not a place for selective discrimination," he wrote.

 

Some Democrats took issue with Bloch's suggestion that the law needed to be revisited. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), members of the House Judiciary Committee, told Bloch in a Feb. 19 letter: "Your position is directly at odds with established practice, the plain meaning of the law, and how that law has been interpreted for decades. . . . From all appearances, you seem to have taken it upon yourself to withdraw legal protections for federal employees without any legal authority."

[Gjest medlem-23990]

Mhm. Kort sagt: ingen verdens ting har skjedd.

Bloch tok noen ord ut av noe på internett for han var ikke sikker på om det burde vært der. Ingenting annet har skjedd.

 

Mao, utsagnet i topicen:

 

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" (1) as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

 

er rett og slett løgn.

Endret 24. mars 2004 av medlem-23990

[Den Røde Tsar]

Jada Seixon, du eide nok den falske nyheten kraftig nå...

 

Hva om det var meninga? Med vilje og viten? Kanskje Liquid gjorde det akkurat med tanke på det inntruffne...

[Gjest medlem-23990]

Jada Seixon, du eide nok den falske nyheten kraftig nå...

 

Hva om det var meninga? Med vilje og viten? Kanskje Liquid gjorde det akkurat med tanke på det inntruffne...

Tror nok egentlig ikke det...

For det bare bevise hvor mye teit som er ute og går fra venstresiden som på liv og død skal fremstille Bush som noe annet enn det han er...

Det er det som er sykt.

[Thlom]

tja, det er jo fakta at Bush ER en reaksjonær kristenfanatisk homofob.

[OeO]

Tror nok egentlig ikke det...

For det bare bevise hvor mye teit som er ute og går fra venstresiden som på liv og død skal fremstille Bush som noe annet enn det han er...

Det er det som er sykt.

Er masse teit fra alle sider, det som er så trist. Ingen klarer å holde seg til bare sannheten.

[VeXx]

tja, det er jo fakta at Bush ER en reaksjonær kristenfanatisk homofob.

Noe slikt.

[Gjest medlem-23990]

tja, det er jo fakta at Bush ER en reaksjonær kristenfanatisk homofob.

 

Hvis han er det vet jeg ikke hva jeg skal kalle reaksjonære kristenfanatiske homofober...

Tror jeg holder meg for godt til å høre hvorfor du mener dette...