Is this even a surprise anymore? Anti-Gay Representative Caught with A Male Hooker

Hex

Hex

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-gop-whoregasbord.html

Ho-lee CRAP! The scandal unfolding around Washington state Rep. Richard Curtis (R-DUH) is out-Haggarding and out-Craiging anything we've ever seen from fucked up, self-hating, anti-gay, right-wing Republicans. And that, my tender kittens, is rilly, rilly saying something.

From the police report, via Dan Savage:
Curtis stated both he and the male walked into the lobby together. He told the male gain that he would give the male $100 to help him out but he was not paying him to have sex. Curtis and the male went up to Curtis’ room, which was 968. Once in the room Curtis gave the male $100…. Curtis and the male ultimately had anal intercourse on the bed in Curtis’ hotel room. The male performed intercourse on Curtis and the male’s semen and/or DNA would be on the inside of the condom while Curtis’ DNA would be on the exterior. Curtis said he was the person who received the anal sex. [Emphasis Dan's]​
The hooker told the cops:
[Castagna] states [Curtis] was a “freak.” [Castagna] said that [Curtis] dressed in women’s lingerie during sex. [Castagna] said he used a condom and performed anal intercourse on [Curtis]…. After the sex act was completed [Curtis] told [Castagna] he wanted to perform “bareback sex” on [Castagna because Curtis] did not like the feel of condoms. [Castagna] told [Curtis] that he did not do that, that he didn’t know [Curtis], and that “bareback sex” was unsafe sex and was dangerous. [Curtis] asked [Castagna] “what would it take for you to do it.”​
According to Castagna, he and Curtis settled on a $1000 barebacking fee, but when Curtis fell asleep after completing the act, Castagna took pictures with his cell phone and left with the Honorable Rep's wallet. He then called Curtis and demanded his fee with a threat to expose Curtis to the press and his wife. Police nabbed Castagna when he showed up (and this is priceless) at the "last flowerpot on the Washington Street Bridge", where he'd instructed Curtis to leave his money.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

I applaud these rightious, moral, family-vaules-toting, upstanding Republicans for shielding us from the evil of those horrible, horrible homosexicals.


This shit makes my week. :applause:
 
People just need to be true to themselves. If you like women, fine. If you like men, fine. If you like trangendered persons, fine. If they are legal age then who cares...

That being said...

I have no sympathy for anyone who cheats on a spouse and doesn't even care if he/she has dangerous sex which could pass something on to the spouse. That pisses me off more than just about anything. Once you get married or are in a sexual relationship with someone, at least have the fucking decency to tell your spouse you want to screw other people in an unprotected manner. fucking asswipes.
 
Kinda makes me wonder about some super homophobe jocks i knew in high school.

I read in some other article that he is really backpeddling on his story (of course) and now claiming, maybe he had sex but he's not sure because he might have been drugged. The other guy must have put the lingirie on him after he drugged him and barebacked him... I mean, those gay guys are predators!!! He could probably work this into his platform.



Once this guy gets cornered in his web of lies he's probably going to kill himself.
 
How sad is it that the first thing I checked was the post date to make sure that this wasn't about one of the other outed Republican homo-haters?

It's been a bad summer for the self-haters.
 
[quote name='apokalipze2']What is it with these conservatives and gay sex?:whistle2:s[/quote]

The best thing they could do is just admit they are gay and live how they want. If they are concerned about their party's reaction, form a new party. Shit, if that breaks up the two party system I'm all for it.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The best thing they could do is just admit they are gay and live how they want. If they are concerned about their party's reaction, form a new party. Shit, if that breaks up the two party system I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be far more likely for the nutjob Dobson/Robertson types to disappear from the political landscape for quite some time to reorganize the troops and discover their next political approach, and allow the Republican party to focus on economic issues.

And I consider even that to be very unlikely.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think it would be far more likely for the nutjob Dobson/Robertson types to disappear from the political landscape for quite some time to reorganize the troops and discover their next political approach, and allow the Republican party to focus on economic issues.

And I consider even that to be very unlikely.[/quote]

Where is the "Curtis FEARS Jesus" sign? :lol:
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The best thing they could do is just admit they are gay and live how they want. If they are concerned about their party's reaction, form a new party. Shit, if that breaks up the two party system I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]

What you propose is impossible for those who want to go into public service as a senator or congressman. If they're outed it's pretty much is a death knell of unelectability.

I suppose in some extremely liberal states one could get elected to the state legislature but I really doubt a homosexual could get elected to the federal legislature. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but that is the way it is.

I wouldn't call butt sex with a condom on unprotected sex either. I'm not saying its safe but it sure as heck is not unprotected...its...umm...less than protected but safer than unprotected.
 
Did you totally miss the paragraph talking about him paying $1,000 to get cornholed without a rubber?

[quote name='pittpizza']What you propose is impossible for those who want to go into public service as a senator or congressman. If they're outed it's pretty much is a death knell of unelectability.

I suppose in some extremely liberal states one could get elected to the state legislature but I really doubt a homosexual could get elected to the federal legislature. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but that is the way it is.

I wouldn't call butt sex with a condom on unprotected sex either. I'm not saying its safe but it sure as heck is not unprotected...its...umm...less than protected but safer than unprotected.[/quote]
 
[quote name='pittpizza']What you propose is impossible for those who want to go into public service as a senator or congressman. If they're outed it's pretty much is a death knell of unelectability.

I suppose in some extremely liberal states one could get elected to the state legislature but I really doubt a homosexual could get elected to the federal legislature. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but that is the way it is.

.[/QUOTE]

You are, obviously, unfamiliar with representative Barney Frank.
 
I WAS unfamiliar with Barney Frank. How about that, I guess some parts of this country are less prejudiced than I thought. I just found out that there is also a lesbian in Congress, Tammy Baldwin (D
 
It's becoming the Gay Old Party!

Time to dust off this old chestnut from the Simpsons:

Gay Man: We need to find a symbol for our campaign. Something that says we're gay and Republican.
[Maggie's lost pink baloon in the shape of an elephant flies through the window]
Gay Man: A little bit on the nose, don't you think?
Click to expand...

BTW I remember a while ago when Myke posted the news about a Republican state senator getting caught doin hanky gay stuff a while ago and it got a few pages of posts. Now noone pays attention unless it's a Federal congressman. Are they just trying to wear the media down with more of the same? :lol:
 
This is both awful and good at the same time. On the one hand, it's disgusting that someone as hypocritical as this man was elected to office and his actions in relation to his wife are reprehensible. Cheating is cheating and to me, there's no way of making that right.

On the other hand, it's good to have politicians who are hypocrites like this exposed for the liars they are.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']This is both awful and good at the same time. On the one hand, it's disgusting that someone as hypocritical as this man was elected to office and his actions in relation to his wife are reprehensible. Cheating is cheating and to me, there's no way of making that right.

On the other hand, it's good to have politicians who are hypocrites like this exposed for the liars they are.[/quote]

Alright Kenneth Starr. You sound like a R. from about 1998.

Cheating happens. I'm not advocating infidelity but IMO its a personal matter and at most reflects only tangentially to a politician's ability to do their job. Soliciting prostitution in the way this guy did it, esp. when he portends to represent the "moral majority" on the other hand...
 
I'm not a fan of cheating on ones spouse...especially with a prostitute. You are correct, though, it doesn't directly reflect a politician's ability to perform their job.

But, cheating on your spouse with a male prostitute when you are campaigning on traditional values and claiming to have this traditional family while oppose gay rights is reprehensible on so many different levels.
 
[quote name='t0llenz']This is both awful and good at the same time.[/quote]

There is no way in which this is awful - it is awesome.

Another slap to the big fat face of red state Republican bigots - who better then one of their own.
 
[quote name='camoor']There is no way in which this is awful - it is awesome.

Another slap to the big fat face of red state Republican bigots - who better then one of their own.[/QUOTE]

If nothing else, Curtis got his comeuppance from a shrewd (if not criminal) gay man. Not only is Curtis exposed as a hypocrite and his family ruined (and make no mistake, any anti-gay Republican whose family is ruined is fine by me, as it is just desserts), but he was taken advantage of by an escort - not, thankfully, another Mark Foley scenario.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If nothing else, Curtis got his comeuppance from a shrewd (if not criminal) gay man. Not only is Curtis exposed as a hypocrite and his family ruined (and make no mistake, any anti-gay Republican whose family is ruined is fine by me, as it is just desserts), but he was taken advantage of by an escort - not, thankfully, another Mark Foley scenario.[/QUOTE]

You people are just as cruel and inhumane as the ones you rally against. Reveling in the misery of others' family tragedies from any adulterous scandal isn't something to be proud of. For god's sake, take it out on the perpetrators and the bible thumping constituents they cow-tow to and not all red-state republicans and their families.

Democrats don't exactly embrace the homosexual cause either and will never be caught endorsing any gay rights amendments or marriage laws during, or after a campaign. They also purport to be supporters of family values, whatever that means. There are also replete examples of democrat sexual improprieties, current, and historical. Shouldn't those examples tarnish the democratic party and their platform ? Or is sexual perversion just part of their platform and considered normal behavior for a democrat?

These are not party related scandals. They are the acts of confused or just immoral, power-hungry men. Fortunately for all of us they are disgraced, but are still not rationalizations to invalidate republican "values". Now, if you found out some Democrats actually believe in private property, you may be onto a tremendous hypocrisy scandal.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Democrats don't exactly embrace the homosexual cause either and will never be caught endorsing any gay rights amendments or marriage laws during, or after a campaign.
[/quote]

Sometimes I think when you read these threads, you're sitting there with your fingers plugging your ears, going 'la la la'. It's been said before, and I'll say it again: Republicans are the ones who're rallying against homosexuality. Democrats are not. The primary democrat candidates aren't support gay marriage, but most in the least support civil unions- while still an insipid seperate but equal situation, it's still a step in the right direction.
 
I'm a democrat and I embrace homosexuals all the time. Hey hex have a virtual cyber hug from me::grouphug:

Seriously though, I personally don't really take joy out of destroyed families, but I also dislike hypocrits, even though probably I am one in some regards.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You people are just as cruel and inhumane as the ones you rally against. Reveling in the misery of others' family tragedies from any adulterous scandal isn't something to be proud of. For god's sake, take it out on the perpetrators and the bible thumping constituents they cow-tow to and not all red-state republicans and their families.[/quote]

I suppose Curtis had no choice at all when it came to being a front-stage hatemonger towards homosexuals and a back-stage, well...homosexual. I suppose Curtis had no choice in getting married and having children, and following that, making the decision to not only display infidelity, but also a behavior typical of people he considers unworthy citizens.

Seeing as how he had no choice at all in his life path, and that everything else was forced upon him by circumstance or social structure...indeed, you are right. I was crass in my reaction, and need to respect the fact that incidental bareback buttfucking is a fact of life. So much so that it happens to people who don't even proclaim to like homosexuals!

And here, this whole time, I was under the impression that the "homosexual agenda" was trying to do no more than stop people from actively hating and displaying bigotry towards gays. They really are trying to convert the country (here's a hint: 7 and 7).

They also purport to be supporters of family values, whatever that means. There are also replete examples of democrat sexual improprieties, current, and historical. Shouldn't those examples tarnish the democratic party and their platform ? Or is sexual perversion just part of their platform and considered normal behavior for a democrat?
Click to expand...

Funny how family values is only questionable for Democrats. Let me phrase it this way: which is a greater example of "family values":
A) Rudy Giuliani, who has had...what? 3? 4 wives?
B) The Clintons, who remained married despite Bill's infidelity?
My answer? Neither! Considering one "worse" than the other merely shows your bias towards the political parties people align themselves towards!

These are not party related scandals. They are the acts of confused or just immoral, power-hungry men. Fortunately for all of us they are disgraced, but are still not rationalizations to invalidate republican "values". Now, if you found out some Democrats actually believe in private property, you may be onto a tremendous hypocrisy scandal.
Click to expand...

When your party platform rides on the oppression of a *CLASS* of people who have done no harm (unless you consider that one time they all got in the way of that nice lil' police demonstration at Stonewall and fucked everything up) to society at large, then it blody well jolly goddamned IS a party-related scandal. We've had half a dozen medium-to-high profile Republicans caught red-handed in homosexual scandals over the past 12 months (at minimum!). When your party is the party that proposes a CONSTITUTIONAL fuckING BAN on marriages (which is a mite different from the Democrat's "see nothing hear nothing say nothing" approach, to be quite clear), you can not say it is not a party issue.

Mark Curtis ruined his own political career, and ruined his own family. The same happens of hundreds of families that are built due to the fear of coming out and feeling safe and protected and respected in modern American society. The Democrats may sometimes be wimps on sexual issues (though it's convenient of you to ignore the status upgrades to groups listed under those hate crimes laws you adore so much, as was passed by this very Democrat ruled shitting Congress this year)...but when the alternative is a political party that treats gays like pinatas, to be abused for the amusement of the masses...you'll settle for some weak-kneed Democrats by comparison.
 
Look, Myke, let me first say that I am not a Republican, nor do I agree with their christian-fed moral agenda. By questioning "Democrat family values", I am in no way endorsing the Right's crusade or defending it in any way. I'm just pointing out the hypocracy in those that celebrate the destruction of someone's family and lay claim to a party that is supposedly "compassionate". It is a pathological response to a tragedy regardless of their political leanings.

If anything, those opposed should take the opportunity to be of a higher moral character and lead by example in this issue to sympathize with the scandalized instead of mirroring their behavior by being assholes. Should homosexuals only sympathize with the angst and fear of leftists instead of conservatives ? The unwillingness of the left to treat people equally and fairly screams louder than their demands to treat people equally and fairly. That's hypocrisy in another nutshell.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The unwillingness of the left to treat people equally and fairly screams louder than their demands to treat people equally and fairly.[/QUOTE]

I do not follow you.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Look, Myke, let me first say that I am not a Republican, nor do I agree with their christian-fed moral agenda. By questioning "Democrat family values", I am in no way endorsing the Right's crusade or defending it in any way. I'm just pointing out the hypocracy in those that celebrate the destruction of someone's family and lay claim to a party that is supposedly "compassionate". It is a pathological response to a tragedy regardless of their political leanings.[/quote]

...perhaps. That doesn't change how I feel, of course. I don't like to see individuals or families suffer. I look at this not at another rung on the inevitable destruction of the Republican party. That's what a fool would think. I look at it as greater evidence of (1) the pervasiveness of homosexuals in our society, and (2) the sorts of problems that stem from stigmatizing and oppressing homosexuals. If homosexuals were no different from heterosexuals (something we are decades from achieving, if we use race differences as a barometer :lol:), there would be no problem here.

While the right thinks that homosexuality was the causal problem here (which is, in reality, misspecified infidelity as homosexual activity), I look at the social structure that compelled this man to hide who he was and what his personal intimate differences were. That's the difference.

If anything, those opposed should take the opportunity to be of a higher moral character and lead by example in this issue to sympathize with the scandalized instead of mirroring their behavior by being assholes. Should homosexuals only sympathize with the angst and fear of leftists instead of conservatives ? The unwillingness of the left to treat people equally and fairly screams louder than their demands to treat people equally and fairly. That's hypocrisy in another nutshell.
Click to expand...

Eh, that's just a bunch of hyperbole. I'm so fucking insensitive because a hatemonger was caught doing what he and his party rallies against. Poor, poor, insensitive me. :roll:
 
I was surprised when I first learned that sexual orientation was not a protected class under Title VII. Courts could extrapolate discrimination on the basis of sex to cover homosexuals but have never done so. Sometimes courts need to stuff changes down our throats before they're popular or ready to be received by the public, (see e.g. Brown v. Bd. of Educ.) and this seems like a place where they could do it.

I doubt the bill will pass. I don't think legislators will vote for something the majority of thier constituents don't want them to, even if they personally feel, as I do, that extending the protections is right. I am not too sure however, how much popular support it has.
 
Yes, lets see who votes for another bill that restricts the freedom of business owners and employers to hire whomever they choose. Celebrating this type of right restriction as a victory for freedom is probably the most dangerous hypocrisy of all.

Government should absolutely be required to be non discriminatory in hiring, but depriving private enterprise and individuals of this freedom is morally reprehensible.
 
Precisely where you and I differ so frequently: you find a social situation in which one person/group's rights are unavoidably at risk. Either homosexuals, or business owners. Evidently, you prefer to side with monied interests 100% of the time. Money is indeed power, apparently. EOE legislation be damned! I don't want no queers, niggers, moo-slims, or women working for ME!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, lets see who votes for another bill that restricts the freedom of business owners and employers to hire whomever they choose. Celebrating this type of right restriction as a victory for freedom is probably the most dangerous hypocrisy of all.

Government should absolutely be required to be non discriminatory in hiring, but depriving private enterprise and individuals of this freedom is morally reprehensible.[/quote]
Wow. The conceit is palpable. Here I had hoped that sort of thinking had died with that psycho Ayn Rand. :roll:

As myke stated, yet again it's shown that all people give a fuck about is money- which I consider morally reprehensible.
 
It's all moot, since that great big bigot in the White House will veto it (proving just how much the Republican party hates homosexuals...AGAIN). But, had it passed (a premature eulogy, I suppose), there were caveats in such restrictions for religious-oriented businesses. So, if you were the bigoted evangelical christian owner of a Christain bookstore ("Get yer 'footprints' laminated pictures here!"), you have the right to deny employment. If you were the bigoted evangelical christian owner of a quickee-mart, gym, bakery, or any erm..."secular" institution, well, tough shit. Better try to convince Uncle Sam you're a Christian only bakery.

"I swear, unleavened bread and hot cross buns! That's all we make!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h3685:

Let's see who votes for and against this bill as a litmus test of how homosexual friendly Republicans and Democrats are.[/QUOTE]

House vote was today.

*drum roll*

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml

*ta-DAH!*

235 Yea votes: 200 Democrats, 35 Republicans

184 Nea vote: 25 Democrats, 159 Republicans

14 no votes: 8 Democrats, 6 Republicans

...So, I see bmulligan is right. Democrats are so totally, in every way possible, just as bad as Republicans on homosexual rights issues that both parties were evenly split in voting for and against.

Err...oh, wait. Nope, that's not right. Looks like 85% of Democrats vote in favor of gay rights, while 79.5% of Republicans want to keep an oppressed group oppressed. Or, rather, perhaps in bmulligan's world, they merely tend to value the rights of those with money over others.
 
How can you vote against that? The title alone makes voting against it a violation of basic human rights.

"Actually, I'd like employers to be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation, thanks."

Was the bill even necessary, if "all men were created equal?"
 
[quote name='Mike23']How can you vote against that? The title alone makes voting against it a violation of basic human rights.

"Actually, I'd like employers to be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation, thanks."

Was the bill even necessary, if "all men were created equal?"[/QUOTE]

Well, many bills have stunningly ironic titles (No Child Left Behind, The Clean Air Act, Healthy Forests Initiative, etc.), so on title alone, it's mere political posturing. Now, of course, you're right to a degree - based on this vote, political ads next fall can say "Representative Blowhard voted in FAVOR of discrimination in the workplace," replete with low synthesizer notes and a stretched and rotated image of Rep. Blowhard.

Besides, the queers won't vote for them anyway (self-fulfilling prophecy much?), so they may as well pander to those people who might NOT vote for them if they're revealed to be faglovers in evangelical newsletters.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You people are just as cruel and inhumane as the ones you rally against. Reveling in the misery of others' family tragedies from any adulterous scandal isn't something to be proud of. For god's sake, take it out on the perpetrators and the bible thumping constituents they cow-tow to and not all red-state republicans and their families.

Democrats don't exactly embrace the homosexual cause either and will never be caught endorsing any gay rights amendments or marriage laws during, or after a campaign. They also purport to be supporters of family values, whatever that means. There are also replete examples of democrat sexual improprieties, current, and historical. Shouldn't those examples tarnish the democratic party and their platform ? Or is sexual perversion just part of their platform and considered normal behavior for a democrat?

These are not party related scandals. They are the acts of confused or just immoral, power-hungry men. Fortunately for all of us they are disgraced, but are still not rationalizations to invalidate republican "values". Now, if you found out some Democrats actually believe in private property, you may be onto a tremendous hypocrisy scandal.[/quote]

The story's pretty funny, you have to admit that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, many bills have stunningly ironic titles (No Child Left Behind, The Clean Air Act, Healthy Forests Initiative, etc.), so on title alone, it's mere political posturing. Now, of course, you're right to a degree - based on this vote, political ads next fall can say "Representative Blowhard voted in FAVOR of discrimination in the workplace," replete with low synthesizer notes and a stretched and rotated image of Rep. Blowhard.

Besides, the queers won't vote for them anyway (self-fulfilling prophecy much?), so they may as well pander to those people who might NOT vote for them if they're revealed to be faglovers in evangelical newsletters.[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily believe that a vote against something is in favour of the alternate, but still, I saw those commercials in my mind's eye when I read this.

By the way, Canada's same-sex marriage legislation allows civil unions between same-sex couples. But in reading Jean Chretien's memoirs, he makes a good point; How much easier would this be without the word "Marriage" in it? Make the federal and state laws announce them as "civil unions" and allow churches to define them however they want.

The best thing about Chretien, as well, is that he was born a Roman Catholic, but realized he wasn't elected as one. You can almost trace his movement from a conservative thought-process to a tolerant view of society. All it took was 40 years in office! :lol:
 
Cheating on a spouse unprotected with a prostitute while campaigning against gay rights and not even fucking paying the guy for his services.

Despicable. Man should be shot.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Gay marriage became legal under his successor/rival Paul Martin (Jr., if ya wanna get specific). Martin's government was disastrous, and crumbled under the weight of Chretien-induced scandal.[/QUOTE]

Not to go off topic, but how's Harper's government doing by comparison?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Precisely where you and I differ so frequently: you find a social situation in which one person/group's rights are unavoidably at risk. Either homosexuals, or business owners. Evidently, you prefer to side with monied interests 100% of the time. Money is indeed power, apparently. EOE legislation be damned! I don't want no queers, niggers, moo-slims, or women working for ME![/QUOTE]

Sorry, Myke, no one has a "right" to a job offered by someone else. Denial of freedom to one individual to hire whomever they choose is a denial of that freedom for everyone. Many people who can't understand this have never actually created a job to be offered in the first place.

It has nothing to do with protecting money, it has everything to do with protecting individual freedom. I created a job, I own it. I can make more, or I can take them away when I see fit. The person I hire for that job represents me, my business, my product and should project an image necessary to entice people to buy my product. Should I be forced to hire an indian to sell my white supremist t-shirts ? Hell no.

There is no such thing as group rights if you accept that "all men are created equal" hogwash. Singling out a group and granting favor based on attributes is discriminatory against all others not belonging to that group and contrary to the equal protection clause, no matter what the socially equalizing intent.

But then, we've argued the individual freedom schtick before, haven't we. And we all know you only believe in freedom as long as people make the right social choices according to Myke. And we all know the state would be a much better distributor of freedoms than protector of them.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Denial of freedom to one individual to hire whomever they choose is a denial of that freedom for everyone.[/QUOTE]

I suggest you actually read the test of the legislation before you go on such a rant. Because you're wrong, and completely need to get off of your fucking soapbox. Because there are exceptions in this bill.

EDIT: Alternately, let's assume this bill is vetoed by Bush, as it surely will. Doesn't it really get under your skin that I can't fire a jigaboo for merely being a jigaboo? Damned Marxist EOE laws!
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Gay marriage became legal under his successor/rival Paul Martin (Jr., if ya wanna get specific). Martin's government was disastrous, and crumbled under the weight of Chretien-induced scandal.[/QUOTE]

Gagliano's scandal.

I'd argue that the entire policy was the result of the Chretien legacy in government, but I guess you are technically correct.

Harper on gay rights? He personally voted against the bill, but left it for a "free vote". Essentially, that means MPs could vote along their own beliefs, rather then party lines.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suggest you actually read the test of the legislation before you go on such a rant. Because you're wrong, and completely need to get off of your fucking soapbox. Because there are exceptions in this bill.

EDIT: Alternately, let's assume this bill is vetoed by Bush, as it surely will. Doesn't it really get under your skin that I can't fire a jigaboo for merely being a jigaboo? Damned Marxist EOE laws![/QUOTE]


What gets under my skin are people like you who would demand that I hire whomever YOU determine is best for a job that I create and a company I build. If you choose not to buy from me, that's a freedom you can employ to put me out of business, as well as organizing a boycott of my business for whatever reason you choose. Why shouldn't business owners have the same luxury of freedom ? Because you obviously know what is right and wrong over any other individual's judgment.

Like I said, Government should be held to the strictest of non-discriminatory standards, not PRIVATE enterprise. Otherwise we might as well stop calling it that and finally get rid of those evil capitalist dogs once and for all with one fell swoop.

Again, you only believe in individual freedom as long as they adhere to myke's almanac of correctness. In an ironic twist, I'm sure you believe that a woman should be able to abort a fetus at any time, for whatever reason she wishes.
 
You do, and should, have the right to hire whomever you want based upon qualifications for the job. If I show up to your architecture firm with a GED and 3 years at Burger King, you have the right to give me an insincere smile and a "don't call us, we'll call you." And you bloody well should, given those criteria.

You're conflating (perhaps on purpose) two issues: what criteria you can use for hiring purposes, and what criteria you can not (and, what criteria you can not fire for). You make it sound like I'm in favor of tying your hands such that you must represent the United Colors of Benetton in your business, which is absurd and untrue. What I am in favor of is tying your hands so that you can't tell a perfectly capable and qualified employee to pack their shit because of their race, religion, gender, or whom they happen to be in love with.

Color me a fuckin' facist for that, won't ya? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top