Homosexuals Angry at ConocoPhillips

FamilyNews ^ | 2/11/03 | Terry Phillips

[c0rbin]

Why shouldn't homosexuals be free from discrimination?

[ppaul]

They are - unless they want to parade their perversion in public.
Then they ought to be discriminated against.

[c0rbin]

"parade their perversion in public."

Do you consider marriage or hand-holding "parading"?

[Dimensio]

Um, the story is that the news article that started this whole discussion is out of date, since the police change has been amended and the company's non-discrimination policy now does cover sexual orientation.

(note: sexual orientation applies not just to homosexuals and bisexuals, but also to heterosexuals).

[ppaul]

Do you consider marriage or hand-holding "parading"?

If you mean "marriage" of two men, or two men holding hands and cavorting like a teenage boy and girl in love, yes.

[c0rbin]

"If you mean "marriage" of two men, or two men holding hands and cavorting like a teenage boy and girl in love, yes."

Other than your tastes, what's wrong with that?

[ppaul]

Other than your tastes, what's wrong with that?

Everything.
Are one of these fellas you?

[c0rbin]

"Everything.
Are one of these fellas you?"

Everything includes you, you know. Can you be a little more specific, or do you rage blindly?

[Old Professer]

(note: sexual orientation applies not just to homosexuals and bisexuals, but also to heterosexuals).

That's like saying the seatbelt in your family car could be used for your dog.

[c0rbin]

I am waiting. And gosh, there are so many jokes about misguided rage and homosexuality that I could be dropping on you, but I am trying to be intelligent about this.

What exactly is wrong with homosexuality?

[Republican Party Reptile]

The irony is (was) that ConocoPhilips, and Archie in particular, has a reputation in the oil patch of being the most "PC" or "progressive" or "enlightened" of the major oil companies. If environmentalists can have a favorite oil company, it is likely to be ConocoPhilips.

[Republican Party Reptile]

so are you saying that people *should* be harassed and discriminated against soley because they may be homosexual?

[c0rbin]

...still waiting on reasons why you think homosexuality is wrong...

Can you articulate your own thoughts, or only copy and paste articles?

[Republican Party Reptile]

For myself, I just oppose this sort of policy because of (at least the appearance) that a certain group gets something approaching "more than equal" rights.

This falls under the libertarian approach as enunciated by Larry Elder... if a company wants to be foolish enough to discriminate against a group and lose their business (and talents)...that's the company's (usually foolish) decision... we don't need an army of bureaucrats to make this sort of market force do it's job.

The thing is, if the company is going to have a non-discirminate policy, then it is not "more than equal" rights for anyone to NOT be discriminated by the company - be it for religious believe, race, ethnicity, or gender, and in this case, sexual orientation. The policy just says everybody is equally NOT to be discriminate by the company.

Or take the libertarian approach you described, a company can discriminate against anyone for any reason and let the market sort them out.

But to make a policy that only selectively allow discrimination of say "sexual orientation" is not either.

[Ciexyz]

Ah so you've set the story straight. er, "correct". You've set the story correct.

[Dimensio]

No, it's more like saying that laws against racial discrimination also protects whites. Though I'd expect more real anti-white bias than I would anti-heterosexual, many people don't consider either angle of anti-discrimination laws (hence the false claim that homosexuals are being given "special rights" as a result of those laws).

[Old Professer]

No, it's more like saying that laws against racial discrimination also protects whites.

Now, I should trade absurdities?