What is Digg?17 Comments
- lydecker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15If homosexuality was purely considered immoral behavior, that still doesn't justify firing anyone. You can't fire anyone for sexual promiscuity, drinking lots, etc. if it doesn't affect the job in any way. Criminal acts may be one thing, but decisions at work should never consider private life factors.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13First the comment about Jews and money and now this. Thompson seems to be suffering from "Foot-in-mouth" disease.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This debate did have a logic question: Do you believe in evolution? Three candidates failed.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10And his best defense is that he was too STUPID to understand the implications of the question?
Is he taking cues from Gonzales? Tommy, you're supposed to fall on your sword (or in this case, swallow it) to protect your boss. When you're running for President, you are the boss. It doesn't work so well in that case.
Can the next debate feature a basic math or logic question? I hesitate to ask for a full IQ test, but let's start off simple. - sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7He just appeared on Bill Maher and blamed it on his hearing aid. He said it fell out/wasn't working, so he misunderstood the question.
What a load of *****. - nycjap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I was completely taken aback when none of the analysts or commentators on MSNBC picked up on this horrendous gaff after the debates were over. They were all so busy trying to figure out who made out the best, who lost the most, who looked "presidential" the most, that they complete ignored this rather outrageous statement by Thompson.
Can we assume then, that in Wisconsin, if your employer doesn't like your race, religion or politics, they can fire you too, and it would be OK with Tommy? It's probably for the best anyway. With Fred Thompson getting ready to enter the race, having Tommy around would've confused the voters. Too many darn Thompsons. - CaptA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To tyrannysucks,
Bravo ... and amen!!
Lo and behold: Private Property Rghts at "their" best! Sad PPR's do not exist in America, they do in selected places in the world and that's a good thing! Freedom at its best!
A smile brought to you today by tyrannysucks!
Thank you... :) - skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I was hoping that this was about Jack Thompson. Please make the article title more descriptive.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This guy should just pull out of the race right now. I probably have a greater chance of winning the presidency than he does, and I'm not even American.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4even if his opinion in action would mean active discrimination against a group regardless of the fact that their being gay wouldn't affect their job performance at all?
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@carpespasm
"would mean active discrimination " ??????
Would you care to back that up with evidence? From everything I've seen, gays have been persecuted by the government much more than by employers. Remind me, how does the military treat gays? The change in attitude hasn't come about because of the government, rather it has come about in spite of the government. Read a little, here's a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
Given the government's horrible failure to provide equal protection for gays, why would you want them involved in any manner whatsoever? On what basis do you expect government to have any success in regulating personal affairs? Is it your habit to reward incompetence with more responsibility? - LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yah I think a boss should be allowed to fire someone if he doesn't like something about them. If we start passing laws on this then basically we are living in a police state where the government is telling us how to live our lives. On the other hand, I think a person should be able to sue a boss if he was dismissed unreasonably, including being gay. I guess, for me, this come down to the difference between being criminally and civilly liable for your actions. Firing someone because they are gay should not be criminally punishable, but should be left open for civil action if the former employee believes that he was discriminated against.
- schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3No need to apologize. I didn't find the remark gay at all.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3He has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. He never should have apologized.
- appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Maybe next time Chris Matthews and his Democrat co-horts could think of some intelligent questions to ask. At least the Republicans weren't afraid to face the enemy as were the Dems, running away from Fox like spoiled little children. I guess it's more like scared little children seeing they were only following orders. Just what we need, a bunch that can't even think for themselves.
- bjkrautk, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3race and religion are protected categories under federal law.
Sexual preference? Not so much (although there are some states that have passed laws to that effect).
I'm more interested in the apology than the debate question -- why does he feel the need to apologize for the state of the law? Welcome to employment "at will."
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is