The Orange Man’s regime says employers can fire people because they’re gay

Hola a todos. Well this should surprise no one considering the increasing rate of insanity here in The Cesspool/Los Estados Unidos/the US. History repeating itself. I’ve written about that. Back to the 1950s, if not before. I’ve written about that too. Although most people don’t seem to care. (They’re more interested in shallow and superficial US pop culture shit and their precious phones). The Orange Man’s devout stupid sheep want to go back to living in nazi Germany and they don’t deny it when that’s written about them. I guess one has heard that El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man says that employers can fire people because they’re gay, and the US Department of Injustice is currently working to make it legal for employers to fire people because of their gay sexual orientation.

I know some (many?) shallow and easily duped Queers fell for El Hombre Naranja during the septic presidential s-election campaign just because the bully-man-child held up a Rainbow Flag. That’s all it took. Although he held the flag up upside-down (red goes at the top, not purple) and I pointed this out to some of his alleged-Queer supporters — or were they anti-gay breeders pretending to be Queer to get more Queers to support him? — and these supposed Queers rushed to defend him by saying, “I didn’t know the flag was held upside down and that doesn’t matter; I don’t know the correct order of the Rainbow Flag colours either.” You don’t?! You say you’re Queer and after all these years you still don’t know the correct order of the colours of the Rainbow Flag? Yes, stupid is in. But that stunt from The Orange Man was all that was needed for some gullible Queers to fall in line and lick his boots. It seems that many Queers/GTQBLs unfortunately retired their keen bull shit detectors to the closet that they had during the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement. These days they seem to fall for anything, especially if the politician has a “D” (for Democrat) next to his/her name.

As I and a few others have said from Day One, El Hombre Naranja has a draconian agenda of taking The Cesspool/the US back to the 1940-1950s, if not before, with the gay closet cases he surrounds himself with. So it comes as no surprise to me when I read that The Orange Man’s regime — specifically the US Department of Injustice — said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect Queers/GTQBL’s in the US from being fired because of their sexual orientation. This is a complete reversal from the policies of previous occupants of la casa blanca/the white house. It also speaks to the gay closet cases — including their closet case evangelical supporters — within this repugnant regime, because breeders who are secure with themselves and their own sexuality would not have such policies. It is typically gay closet cases who hate on and bully Queers in order to hide their own Queer sexuality and deep gay shame.

The Department of Injustice has previously filed multiple amicus briefs arguing against Queer protections.

The reason this came up, in part, is because of a lawsuit where a skydiving company is being sued after a former instructor alleged that the company fired him because he was gay. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York (consisting of 13 judges) is to debate whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act — that prevents discrimination based on gender — can also apply to sexual orientation. In the meantime, the Department of Injustice has argued that sexual orientation does not apply, meaning that discrimination against gay employees is completely legal.

“Employers under Title VII are permitted to consider employees’ out-of-work sexual conduct,” an attorney from the Department of Injustice told a federal court. “There is a common sense, intuitive difference between sex and sexual orientation.”

WTF does that mean?

This attorney also said that employers are allowed “to regulate employees’ off-the-job sexual behavior,” basically implying that they can discriminate against employees for adultery, promiscuity or sexual orientation.

My question: Who is going to “regulate the employer’s off-the job sexual behaviour?” One’s sexual behaviour is no business of an employer. And of course we all know that breeders are never promiscuous. Look at all the breeders on CL looking to fuck around on the side. And what about Mr Pussy Grabber? Who’s monitoring his “off-the job sexual behaviour?” How often each day does he grab the pussy of las mujeres/the women en la casa blanca?

Again, another example of the US of Hypocrisy.

A separate US government department also appeared in court to oppose the Department of Injustice, saying that Title VII of the 1964 act did provide protection to gay employees.

This case could end up in the US Supreme Court. I can take a guess how that would turn out, can’t you?

The sky diving instructor who brought the lawsuit against his employer has since died as the lawsuit has progressed, but his partner and sister are continuing his case for him.

This is why — and especially now — we need Gay Meccas, but sadly we don’t have them today. I hope I don’t need to explain that. Much of the Queer community has abandoned their own gay areas of major cities as breeders have pushed Queers out. The Queer community got all cocky and deluded themselves into thinking that “everyone loves gay people now.” Bull shit. Does everyone remember when some delusional fools in the Queer community were going on about “gay is now mainstream; gay people can live anywhere.” Yeah. Uh huh. Fucking idiots. See how well that works out for you as a gay employee, especially in the bigoted anti-gay south of the US. I saw my straight neighbour while writing this and told him about it. He said he would think it unlikely at least at this time, but it wouldn’t surprise him considering the crazy things happening these days if a company in now-conservative San Francisco tried to pull this and fired an employee because of his gay sexual orientation. Wouldn’t surprise me either. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Previously:

Going back to the 1920s and beyond

More back to the 1950s: Gay guys marrying females in droves. Sad.

7 comments on “The Orange Man’s regime says employers can fire people because they’re gay

  1. Queer boi

    Hola pb, thought I’d pass this along to you and your readers –

    The U.N. Human Rights Council Floated a Resolution Condemning the Death Penalty for QUEER People. The U.S. Voted “No.”

    The idea was to condemn those countries which instituted a death penalty for certain acts like “same-sex relations.”

    The resolution passed by a 27-13 margin, and was met with a “yes” vote by every country in the regions of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the “Western Europe and others group,” with two exceptions. Cuba, which has an abysmal record on QUEER rights, abstained. And the U.S. U.N. representative voted NO.

    Reply
    1. D8

      If ANYTHING is going to piss off the Queer Community it should be this. But I see no signs of piss-offed-ness. We might see the usual corporatized group come together at Harvey Milk Plaza with their canned speeches and canned applause, which will do nothing. I happened to be in the C astro for the last one and stopped and listened for a bit. I got so turned off. Each speaker sounded like they were talking to children and everyone there applauded at the appropriate time.

      The impression I get from San Francisco’s Queer Community is that their mindset towards Queer activism is now “Been there, Done that” and they no longer care about anything. Maybe that’s why many of them seem to be going back in the closet. If only they would get off their phones and do something with their life as our kind host often says, but we all know that’s not going to happen.

      Reply
      1. el barrio rosa Post author

        Hola D8, I think you must have been at the same “canned protest” I happened to be at when passing through on the way home, and that’s what I came away with too. I agree with you that the “Been there, done that” way of thinking seems to be the prominent thinking these days within the San Francisco Queer community. I think many Queers today associate any activism with the Old City and being in this new, gentrified tech-capital City — although check this out: Techies are leaving San Francisco, but where are they going? — they really want no part of the Old City of San Francisco of the long-gone Gay Mecca days. And with that attitude, GTQBLs will end up having to start all over again at some point. Gracias to everyone for your comments. Chau.

        Reply
        1. E in Sunnyvale

          Hey, it’s very un-Millennial and non-conformist to give a shit or get worked up about anything except someone “unfriending” you on FARCEbook. They just don’t care. Plain and simple. Anyone who does is a “fringe crazy” or some such…

          In reference to the linked article: Meh – they’ve been saying for years now that the techie trash is “moving out”, but I sure don’t see it. I just see a steady stream of transplanted red-state sewage flooding the area and bringing their red-state bigotry with them. The only people who have left or are leaving the area are the Old City folks.

          They already raped and gentrified Seattle years ago and Portland more recently has become a clone of present-day SF. Where will they parasite themselves next?

          I can only laugh that the stupid techies have priced themselves out, but unfortunately, I just don’t see it actually happening.

          To the techies that have left, good riddance. To those who plan to leave, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. We never wanted you here to begin with.

          Reply
  2. E in Sunnyvale

    There is a reason the nazi pig held the rainbow flag upside down in his little photo shoot. It was no accident.

    Reply

Leave a friendly comment/ Dejar un comentario amistoso:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>