So it begins

The liberals tears must flow

politico.com/story/2016/05/house-lgbt-amendment-discrimination-fight-223366

"an amendment by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would have effectively barred federal contractors from getting government work if they discriminate against the LGBT community."

What does that even mean?

It means if you start calling fags "faggots" and threaten to firebomb their house, you get fired or you won't be considered for a job. Fucking stupid amirite

How can you even tell if someone was "discriminated" against?

It means you'd probably get fired for calling someone a faggot on Facebook. Not that they can't fire you for that anyway, but this would make it mandatory.

What a shit show. How can elected officials act this childish?

Booing, stamping their feet, yelling shame and pointing fingers?

Is this the United States Senate or a middle school?

It's a nothing I'll that gets him politic points

It is a bill to solve something that isn't a problem. How many companies would discriminate against gays if they are compitant at their job? The answer is zero

A company that makes tanks isn't goin to give a shit if their worker is gay. It's alreay illegal and it doesn't fucking happen.

It's meaningless, indicative of the identity politics that have completely consumed wasnington for 30 years and the reason why trump won

People are sick of this nonsense

If you don't hire gays you can't contract with the government. It would basically put hiring quotas for blue collar jobs.

Why are you making it into some complicated issue? If you call some gay guy a faggot on facebook or social media, the evidence is right there. Not that hard.

So Donald Trump's Twitter then?

Thats already illegal, no need for a new law

>After the chair closed the vote, Democrats continued shouting in anger.

>“There will be order in this chamber,” the chair said.

>“No there will not be!” yelled Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), who stood at the base of the podium. She pounded her fists on the table in front of her.

Like fucking children

3% of the population identifies as LGBT. So government contractors would need 3% of their workforce to identify as LGBT. Just like they already need 13% Black and so many latino, etc. etc.

It's another federal quota used to push white hetero males out of the economy to make way for the democrat coalition.

except to wank off over to your mates in the press

faggot, I call people faggots all the time and I love my gays, you fucking faggot.

Ffffuuuuug, I'd carve her Jordan

Employers aren't gonna do that. They're just not gonna hire them. Honestly I think it's wrong to discriminate against them for employment if they're up to the task. Everybody needs work. But things like this seem to come with a large legal apparatus that tends to screw over small businesses. They'll try to evaluate if you had cause to not hire someone based on a bunch of supposedly objective principles (but that's not always the best person for the job). There are often quotas in practice. If it's just large businesses being subjected to that it ain't as bad. They can afford it. As long as it's not impossible to get rid of bad employees (as is often the case now) because that makes life hell for the other employees. But small businesses should be given more freedom. They need to be able to hire whomever the fuck they want to have a chance to compete (and they have a right to a certain autonomy if you ask me).

Gay people are passed over for blue collar work because there is a stereotype that they are weak and girly, and that they will hit on all the other workers and slow down every job. That's really the only place its a real problem though.

>they're going to try to pass it again but republicans still have the majority

So it is a ruse to increase the employment of Democrats.

That's true though.

Companies would need to have a certain number of LGBT employees to be eligible to government work.It's fucking absurd because that would imply that employers would be required to ask and report the sexual orientation of their employees, which is AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW.

So this bill was ludicrous and just a reason for Dems to cry and pretend like REpublicans are discriminatory when, in reality, not forcing employers to ask and report on the sexuality and gender identity of their employees actually protects LGBT rights.

So, in the long run, once again, Republicans are the ones more concerned with individual rights. What a shocker.

You know that to ask a persons sexual orientation on an interview is against the law already and if a gay person has good reason to suspect a potential employer of doing it, they can sue the ever living fuck out of them. That is already in place in HR legislature.

Could it be that, like women, maybe most gays just aren't interested in blue collar work and if they are, they aren't enormous flaming queers that make it overtly obvious from the second they prance into your field of vision?

>illegal to ask sexual orientation
Just shows that it's a virtue signal and nothing more. With a Rep held congress, it'll fail, and the Dems can say, "Look at how evil and bigoted those Reps are. They want to stifle faggot/tranny rights."

>this girl is currently pregnant
fuck shit

Reminds me a bit of Hitler describing the parliament of the Weimar Republic in Mein Kampf.

>...a turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man ringing a bell and making frantic efforts to call the meeting to order...

Really gets my almonds activated.

set up a kangaroo court like we do in canada: the CHRC

>chanting shame

JUST LIKE MUH TV SHOWS!111!1 XDD

these people are mentally ill

>jordan-carver.
Can I carver her pussy with my iron rod?