Blacknell.net

Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

“Even worse than being a Democrat”

By

On April 2, 2008

In Society

Someone should have told Monica Goodling that, despite the Administration’s best efforts, you still can’t fire a Federal employee for being gay.

Previous

Interview with Candidate Amit Singh (8th CD) – Part III

Next

On China and the Olympics

9 Comments

  1. James Young

    Someone should tell you that presidential appointees can be fired for any reason (including “being” gay) or for no reason whatsoever.

  2.

    MB

    Pretty sure that Hagen’s not an appointee, James. If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected.

    (You know, I frequently take my recreation at Wakefield Park. And everytime I roll past your building, I am reminded of what a douchebag you are, James.)

  3. James Young

    Nice attitude. “Douchebag,” huh? Bold words from someone who makes legal comments based upon what he believes the law should be, rather than what it is.

    You might want to read the comments at your source: they seem to confirm what I believe to be true, i.e., that Federal employees CAN be fired for “being” gay, even those who aren’t presidential appointees.

  4.

    MB

    Bold words? Hardly. Really, considering the things that you’ve posted under your name, I’d think “douchebag” is rather restrained.

    Now, based on my previous interactions with you, I know that reading comprehension isn’t your strong point, but let me remind you:

    It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age or sexual orientation through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal employment opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.
    — Section 1, Executive Order 11478 (1969), as amended by Executive Order 13087

    And what’s up with the “quotes”? Are you arguing the meaning of the word “is”, or something?

  5. James Young

    No, I’m arguing about the assertion that “gay” is a state of “being,” rather than a chosen behavior.

    And oh. So what you’re relying upon is a Clinton-era Executive Order (adding “sexual orientation”) which the Bush Administration hasn’t had the courage to reverse.

    And I’ll just consider being called a “douchebag” by someone who approves of mainstreaming perversion as a mark of honor, wholly aside from the classlessness of the comment.

  6. Beth

    Wow, Mark, I thought you were just being your usual hyperbolic self, but he totally “is” a douchebag!

  7. joy

    I have nothing to say here. I just figured if I presented my “perverted self” in the comment section, maybe the “douchebag” would go away.

  8. James Young

    Sorry, “joy” (what a misnomer). But how typical of the far Left! You’d rather not hear the truth than face facts.

  9.

    MB

    Hyperbolic, indeed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén