NOM Lashing Out At Starbucks For Supporting Gay Rights

no you can't, because that is discrimination. no different that saying "I didn't hire you because you were black"

 

discrimination is only discrimination if it can be proven..... My hypothetical situation you are unable to PROVE that I didn't hire you because you were gay.

The problem is, even if I hired the straight guy over the "suspected" gay guy (I know it can't ask "are you gay") because the straight guy honestly gave a better interview.... the gay-activists have no problem accusing me of not hiring the gay guy because he was gay and then trying to sue, or social media smear my company.

The policy of "in case of tie, hire the gay" is extra protection, not equality.

 

this is rationalization. which is fine, but it's still discrimination.

 

and no different than choosing someone because he mismatched his tie during the interview.

 

it's actually very different. a correct statement would be "it's no different than choosing someone based on the color of their skin during the interview".

 

negative.... if he's flamboyuantly sasheying around.... lisp through the roof, and is that stereotypical gay, that's a personality trait I don't like so why would I want to hire it.

if a person is a close talker, or a story "one-upper".... also personality traits I don't like and if I can pick up on them during an interview and can use them as reasons I don't hire, then I don't see why I can't use "flamboyant" as the tiebreak. I'd actually be hiring the other guy for "not being flamboyant" rather than NOT hiring the gay for being gay.


but this is the point of the entire thread..... the gay agenda thinks in case of a tie (for all intents and purposes), the tie goes to the queer ..... JUST TO BE SAFE AND NOT LOOK LIKE YOU"RE DISCRIMINATING.

Well how fair is that to the straight guy?

 

This is more rationalization. It's still discrimination.

And that last line is a strawman. I never made such an argument