I'm not sure, you can't fire them for being gay, but unless they have vacation days left you can fire them for skipping work.

If someone called me and said "I'm not coming to work today, I'm gay." my response would be "Come to work right now or you will be gay and unemployed."

You can't fire them for being gay, and clearly you aren't since they aren't turning gay or coming out on Wednesday. Presumably anyone who would do this everyone in their office already knew they were gay. You set the work schedule though, and being gay isn't a legitimate reason to skip work, even if some movement says you should do it.

This could be a problem in states like California which have passed laws banning firings in retaliation for participating in political demonstrations, but there are very few of these states.

Here's a memo from an employment law firm about the legal issues surrounding disciplining workers who missed work for the immigration walkouts: http://www.littler.com/PressPublicat...ents/13950.pdf

Ignoring the limited scope here (you're also ignoring "PTO" situations, personal time, unpaid time off, etc.), I'm not only referring to the strict legal sense of the employee suing for firing based on a protected class, but also the comparative utility of "taking a stand" against one employee-day lost versus the annoyance of dealing with potential media or interest-group backlash, which would likely cost much more than the man-hours lost.

There's a time and a place to make a stand, but it doesn't seem like a good decision from a business standpoint.

Me too.

But I'll go in a different and more close-minded direction. It's one thing if your cause is one that even though you're in the minority, you have an established constitutional or legal right to be who you are and get what you want/need. But if you're going to need the votes of other people to establish your legal ability to be who you are and get what you want/need, it's probably better not to do it in a particularly antagonistic way. Nobody likes to be politically strong-armed.

I'm thinking this may backfire with all the people who have been gradually coming towards acceptance of same sex marriage but still have some reservations. Think of a co-worker who really likes you and wants you to be happy, but maybe comes from a really strict, traditional religious background. This person would probably be torn if same sex marriage came up for a vote in your state and you'd have a chance of winning him or her over. If you screw this co-worker by calling in on a day that he or she will have to pick up the extra work OR jeopardize the overall health of the business or community with a deliberate spending strike, is that really going to have the effect of winning this person to your side? Isn't it possible that this person could conclude that gays are selfish people who only care about themselves and their issues?

I'm not saying that such a person would be correct or that same sex marriage advocates don't have a right to be outraged. BUT if your efforts have a big risk of actually undermining your long term success, are they right thing to do?

It seems that this kind of thing works well for issues about which people need to see that a previously invisible group is actually much more powerful than previously thought. I don't think it's going to work this way this time, for the kind of geographic reasons that K Sig RC mentioned and because I think it's going to polarize people even more in areas where the number of participants probably isn't going to be huge.


ETA: This may seem like an especially dumb question, but why does same sex marriage seem to be a popular referendum, popular vote for a constitutional amendment issue rather than a typical legislative issue? I thought that it had been used in typically conservative states as a way to make sure the evangelical vote made it to the polls for the general election, but that doesn't explain the recent vote in California. Is that a reflection of the general procedures for amending the constitution of California: that it can't be amended by the legislature?

Last time I checked you're allowed to fire people for not showing up to work.

I surveyed my local fellas who like the fellas, and they said "thanks for the support but we've got this" and their opinion on the issue matters more to me than doing it or not. I kind of feel that when it comes to certain issues that don't affect me directly, but affect those I love, I shouldn't be at the front lines, but supporting them how they need to be supported, even if that means not being involved. As my friend pointed out if all the straighties call out it doesn't show the impact of those who are gay accurately, which is what it means to him and his husband.

So did anyone else see the movie Wedding Wars" with Uncle Jesse AKA John Stamos? Some peeps I know are going to watch that movie on their day off.

Wha...? I was talking about the use of the word "queer," not "homosexual."

Keep up.

I think discrimination against gays is legal in some states anyway. The only states where its illegal are:
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

And they aren't federally protected either.

Seriously, I actually addressed exactly this before . . . the legal ramifications (which I'm not qualified to discuss on here anyway) would be the least of your problems. Any reasonable cost/benefit analysis of the loss of 8 man-hours for a relatively benign cause versus the time and effort that may occur due to any outcry or challenge from an activist organization makes this a no-brainer "look the other way" moment, unless the worker is so shitty that you're looking for a reason. If that's the case, why not just use your right-to-work rights and get the f- out now?

Discretion is the better part of valor (and institutional bigotry).

I like George Strait.

And the Straits of Gibraltar.

^^^Really? Straits of Magellan are my favorite.

Ironically enough, I happened to have an APA manual open right next to me so I looked it up and read the entire section. You're right, they do make an interesting point about the frequent misuse of context by the majority in the usage of "homosexual" vs. "gay men and lesbian women."

Now that my paper's finished, I think I don't have enough to do. :o

For the record: 1. I don't like being called a "breeder" but it doesn't exactly offend me . 2. I always said "straight" vs. "crooked" but I guess bent does work a little better. And I do miss the old days when "queer" just meant weird and you could bestow that adjective upon yourself without people edging away from you. 3. If I were in a managerial position, anyone with no PTO or personal time saved up who does not use a legitimate excuse for missing work would face serious consequences with me, though they may not get fired unless company policy calls for it. That being said, I don't think anyone would actually do this unless they a) had PTO or personal time saved up or b) are looking to quit their job anyway and would use this as a way to go out with bang.

A few years back, there were a lot of country station billboards where I'm from that said "Is George Strait?" Hardy har har.

Wooo, APA! In your face, MLA! :cool:

Okay. LightBulb, you made my day. How many MLA jokes do I, long-suffering English major in-the-middle-of-grading-the-research-papers-from-hell get to enjoy? Not many. Thanks!