Here’s my answer. Google Southpark, Garrison, Buttsex, evolution.
Tell DOJ, “You own this problem and I’m not endorsing anything I don’t believe.”
“I didn’t hear a harump from that guy”. Mel Brooks
Actually, my reading of the document is that “silence” will be construed as disapproval by an LGBT employee. I believe that that is a factual statement. The statement is not a threat to a manager.
It is only a threat as far as someone assuming that a feeling of disapproval from an LGBT employee could lead to consequences. You are free to read this into the document, but it isn’t an overt threat.
As I have said, the rump rangers are no longer satisfied to be accepted,they must be publicly praised.
LOL ... speaking is trouble, and silence is trouble ... LOL. It is an obamanation!
VERY scary stuff.
Me: Hello Mr. gay co-worker.
Gay co-worker: Hello.
Me: What did you do this weekend?
Gay co-worker: My gay boyfriend and I went Antiquing and then we had a parade.
Me: Breath mint!
I have come to conclude that I can no longer participate with this tyranical government.
Will those who choose to remain silent be simply terminated or will they face prosecution? And if so, will they be read the Miranda warning..."You have the right to remain silent..."
A properly formed piece of mud seems like chocolate cake. But it isn't.
You can’t win.
“Susan, that’s a really pretty outfit you have on.”
Susan: “Sexual harrassment! I’m offended!”
The next day, co-worker Jim walks in wearing a skirt. Still smarting from yesterday’s reprimand, you sit there and say nothing.
Jim: “You’re being silent! Insensitivity! I’m offended!”
Silence speaks only to those that have have already decided what they want to hear.
These “conversations” inflict harm on religious people and everyone else.
These afflicted people’s need to have these “conversations” is a form of Sexual Addiction. We should file a class action suit for Sexual Harassment.
Forcing others to participate in their sexual practices is Exhibitionism. Take names and file suit for Sexual Harassment.
This is straight out of “A Man for All Seasons”:
Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner’s silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace’s title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More’s opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
I just spent 10 months as a contract Program Manager at a Fortune 500 company. It was an ubber-politically correct company where, among other things, all jokes were forbidden. Employees had to sign a 10 page “ethics” statement mostly forbidding political incorrectness. Basically, all non-work related conversations were frowned on, if not outright banned. In 10 months I can’t remember any occasion to speak one way or another about gayness. It just doesn’t come up in the workplace. There were several religious Christians, but they spoke in whispers when speaking to each other. (They were the superior go-to employees.)
While it's likely to morph over a period of time, at this juncture, it's probably an accurate statement whether one can stomach homosexuals becoming more overt or not. It is not a threat to managers as it shows up in the pamphlet.
“Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.
Savage Dan better not ask me if his dress makes his ass look big...
I am a government employee. I refuse to comply with this. Deal with it.