quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberchicdoll

Its not the youth that make the opinions here, the youth embraces different.   Its those in charge of things, who are usually in the 55 plus age group and who never go out after dark and drive well insured volvos and have never visited a sex shop(this is said tongue in cheek but i think we all know the types). 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3
Are you citing a state court decision about a heterosexual relationship that only applies to a limited employment practice as some basis for suggesting homosexuality somehow applies?  Lawyers and judges cite cases all the time, that doesn't make any precedence whatsoever and certainly not national precedence.

The Lawerence decision if read in its entirety makes it very clear the Supremes are steering clear of the homosexuality issue.  Hell when does this current Court ever not avoid ongoing debates?

Edited to add: while this debate is interesting, it has nothing to do with the OP's questions, so let's let it rest, shall we?

It's at the heart of the OP's question--that's why I'm talking about it.  The question is whether homosexuality is more socially oprobrious than BDSM--who is further in the closet? 

My claim is that homosexuality is much more accpetable than BDSM intimacy, because (homo)sexuality is still sexuality--BDSM, in the SM and BD parts, is not merely or solely sexual/inimate in the way our society defines such.  Much of what we do is explicitly illegal, and other parts implicitly illegal, because they are prima facie indistinguishable from violence--the consent which we see as the grounds for seeing this conduct as acceptable, relational and ethical is generally not recognized.

Homosexuality however, is implicitly protected conduct because of he 14th amendment.  You are right that the decision is not about homosexuality--you are clearly a better critical thinker than our "anal sex" friend who confuses a complaint with an opinion.  the decision is about how far the state can intrude in private lives, and extends the penumbra of rights we enjoy.  Because of this, whether there is a law or not saying "You can't fire anyone for sucking dick" or "You can't fire someone for shacking up with someone," the fact is, outside the one exception of the US military, in America, you can't fire someone for sucking dick, or liking the same sex, or shacking up with someone else.  The Hobbs vs Pender decision doesn't set a precedent--it recognizes the Garner precednet.  See, the SCOTUS makes a decision, like "Laws about private sexual matters like sodomy violate the 14th amendment," and then lower courts like the state court, go "Oh, so that sets a precedent I apply here."

Homosexuality, outside of military service, can't be the locus of state action, and so what our brilliant,  "I'LL GO WITH WHAT DER LAW PERFERFESSOR WROTE!"said is intensely, mind-numbingly wrong. 

We have more work to do in homosexual rights, but the Garner decision made a huge stride forward for all people, gay, straight and in between, by taking the state out of the bedroom.  You can't be fired for having hot, man on man sex.

But you can be arrested, fired and put in jail for tying up and whipping your leather boi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: downkitty

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

From Lambda Legal's employment-issues page:

[T]o this day, workplace concerns remain the number one topic for our Help Desk callers. In Lambda Legal's 2005 Workplace Fairness Survey, 39 percent of gay and lesbian workers reported experiencing some form of harassment or discrimination in the past five years.

Do you have any information on the number of 'people' who admitted to being harassed?  Is the number of homosexual people being harrassed higher, lower, even with the number of people in general being harassed?  The last sexual harassement training I attended cited something like 40% of women admitting to being harassed in some form or another.  I've never really researched this, so I admit I may not be in the loop, but I was under the impression that people in general are treated like shit in the workforce. I was not aware that is was significantly different if you were homosexual rather than a woman, or black or Mormon or 'insert minority of your choice here.'

My other question would be, what happens when they file a complaint?  Are their concerns being addressed?  People will be bullies if allowed, or at least a percentage will be.  Do corporations back up their harassement laws?  I really don't know so am genuinely asking.  I havent worked for a large corporation in a long time.  I do know that as a full-charge bookkeeper, one of my duties is cleaning toilets.  It doesn't bother me, but I know many women in my field that would condsider that discrimination.

Respectfully,

Amy

quote:

Do you have any information on the number of 'people' who admitted to being harassed?  Is the number of homosexual people being harrassed higher, lower, even with the number of people in general being harassed?

quote:

I was under the impression that people in general are treated like shit in the workforce.

quote:

I was not aware that is was significantly different if you were homosexual rather than a woman, or black or Mormon or 'insert minority of your choice here.'

quote:

My other question would be, what happens when they file a complaint?  Are their concerns being addressed?