rednekcowboy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 You are just so clueless Red Neck... They CANNOT adopt in many states and countries. Period. Research it before you spout off uneducated remarks please... And they CANNOT get married either. If they do go somewhere to get married it now isn't valid when they go home... So what is the purpose of that? They are not equal and you're comments show only how unaware you are of the situation. I honestly don't know why you feel you should even be responding to a thread you know absolutely nothing about... I don't respond to threads about things I have no idea whatsoever about (And I certainly am not arrogant / ignorant enough to claim that I know what I'm talking about)...As for your ridiculous claims that people are twisting your posts or meaning, that is simply not true. You've made it quite clear in your posts how you feel. You claim to feel that everyone should be treated equally (Unless of course they "flutter"...), but the rest of your posts say otherwise. I'm not reading anything that you're not writing... They still can get married if they wish, that is simply all that was stated. I did not marry my wife so the government would recognize it, I married her because I love her. I thought that was the point to marriage-to say that you love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with them, not to get certain rights from the government and if that's all it means to you, you're marriage wouldn't last anyways. I never once said how I felt about this guy or this lawsuit, it simply was my intention to show what was plausible and that there are two sides to every story. What you have read into my posts is simply that, what YOU read into it. Don't put words or thoughts into my mouth or head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skulltrail Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Seems like an easy problem to fix for Microsoft. Roughly 50k USD? That's not a bad at all. If I were him, I'd sue for a lot more (7 months of no pay is a lot). So wait, he was being offended by other users on Xbox Live? Or by an actual Microsoft in general? I doubt Microsoft, a company of such high caliber, would make such remarks, but I do see Xbox Live users doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I never once said how I felt about this guy or this lawsuit, it simply was my intention to show what was plausible and that there are two sides to every story. What you have read into my posts is simply that, what YOU read into it. Don't put words or thoughts into my mouth or head. Yawn still banging the same old drum, yes there are two sides to this story but i dont see how you could ever take the side of the people that sent him mental abuse messages wether he instigated it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Yawn still banging the same old drum, yes there are two sides to this story but i dont see how you could ever take the side of the people that sent him mental abuse messages wether he instigated it or not. Hi again Richard, yes we are still going on here because people aren't reading correctly! Did I ever once say I took anyone's side. Have I not said if this happened that it was disgraceful? Yet people continue to attack me because I say it could have happened another way! He says he got emails, but where are they? There is NO proof to back up anything he says and THAT is what I have a problem with! Why do you automatically assume everything he says is true? I did say how do we know that he didn't call himself these things and his coworkers took the cue from him that this was appropriate behavior. If you don't want to keep hearing the same thing from me, quit attacking me and my character and quit bringing up the same points over and over. Edited March 26, 2009 by rednekcowboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ging Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The world is getting far too politically correct. If you can't ostracise your fellow workers for being gay, black, or female, then what the hell else is there to do on your lunch break :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Lyons10 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Take your head out of your a@@ and read what I have wrote. The only people who are being biased here are you and one other member on here. The fact that you can only see one side of this story speaks volumes sir. In case you haven't noticed, I use the word "IF" very often. The fact that you believe everything this guy says is your problem. If you believe everything you read, I would hate to see you with a tabloid in your hands!The facts here are that you are being ignorant here, not me. You let your emotions cloud your judgement and causes you to be biased in this case. I have yet to see a law anywhere forbidding someone to adopt a child because of their sexual orientation!! I have NEVER, EVER used the term "fluttering about" in any of my posts. I have NEVER said any deflamatory or discriminatory remarks about anyone in regards to their sexual orientation. I'm not going to repeat these same arguments over again because you are simply to lazy to read what was written here before. Take a deep breath, count to 10 and then maybe we can have an open, unbiased discussion about this. Well, I don't have time to pull up the list, but I can tell you that we cannot adopt in Arkansas or Florida for starters (This is just off my head). Because it was put up to the public majority to vote on what they wanted and many people like to discriminate. Laws are being passed all of the time, and they are often not in favor of equal rights. The problem with putting the rights of the minority up to the popular vote of the majority... I don't understand your need to respond to posts on here. You're opinion is quite clear that you don't much care for gays... I particularly like your opinion that two people are being biased because they disagree with you... You are something else... I have not made anti-straight comments, I have simply tried to educate you (Someone who insists on posting about something he knows absolutely nothing about, yet insist to be an expert on). As for your response on marriage, like it or not, it is a legal issue, not a religious one. The fact that you don't want us to have rights that you would be able to have is quite showing of who you really are. Your posts have all bee consistent on this position... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Lyons10 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hi again Richard, yes we are still going on here because people aren't reading correctly! Did I ever once say I took anyone's side. Have I not said if this happened that it was disgraceful? Yet people continue to attack me because I say it could have happened another way! He says he got emails, but where are they? There is NO proof to back up anything he says and THAT is what I have a problem with! Why do you automatically assume everything he says is true?I did say how do we know that he didn't call himself these things and his coworkers took the cue from him that this was appropriate behavior. If you don't want to keep hearing the same thing from me, quit attacking me and my character and quit bringing up the same points over and over. I am not assuming everything he says is true, but as someone who has been there, I can relate. My situation didn't involve anything in writing, it was all verbal, but I can assure you that my life was not up for discussion (I wasn't even out at the time). Given this experience (Yet another thing you can't even begin to understand), I can understand his situation. I'm not claiming to know everything that happened, but I doubt seriously he asked for any of this. As for the lack of documentation, I don't know how these sorts of court cases usually work out. Do they usually forward everything to you so that you can review? I don't usually get anything, and rarely do I see cases that have not been in court yet having documentation released to the public. The world is getting far too politically correct. If you can't ostracise your fellow workers for being gay, black, or female, then what the hell else is there to do on your lunch break :( lol... Well, that was amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Well, I don't have time to pull up the list, but I can tell you that we cannot adopt in Arkansas or Florida for starters (This is just off my head). Because it was put up to the public majority to vote on what they wanted and many people like to discriminate. Laws are being passed all of the time, and they are often not in favor of equal rights. The problem with putting the rights of the minority up to the popular vote of the majority...I don't understand your need to respond to posts on here. You're opinion is quite clear that you don't much care for gays... I particularly like your opinion that two people are being biased because they disagree with you... You are something else... I have not made anti-straight comments, I have simply tried to educate you (Someone who insists on posting about something he knows absolutely nothing about, yet insist to be an expert on). As for your response on marriage, like it or not, it is a legal issue, not a religious one. The fact that you don't want us to have rights that you would be able to have is quite showing of who you really are. Your posts have all bee consistent on this position... If you cared to read what I actually post you would see what my feelings are. I never said that two people are being biased because they disagreed with me. I never said you were biased against straights, I said you were biased in this story as you automatically sided with the chap filing suit without having the whole story or seeing any proof! Guess what, that makes you biased!! I respond to posts simply because of inflamatory remarks like you post. I also never said anything about marriage being a legal or religious issue. I said it was a love issue. I NEVER SAID I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE RIGHTS. You are a lier sir. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY! I am not assuming everything he says is true, but as someone who has been there, I can relate. My situation didn't involve anything in writing, it was all verbal, but I can assure you that my life was not up for discussion (I wasn't even out at the time). Given this experience (Yet another thing you can't even begin to understand), I can understand his situation. I'm not claiming to know everything that happened, but I doubt seriously he asked for any of this.As for the lack of documentation, I don't know how these sorts of court cases usually work out. Do they usually forward everything to you so that you can review? I don't usually get anything, and rarely do I see cases that have not been in court yet having documentation released to the public. lol... Well, that was amusing. I'm sorry for the way you were treated. You shouldn't have been as that kind of attitude should not be allowed anywhere today. As far as this story goes, I'm saying its incomplete and there's information missing. Maybe everything happened the way this guy said it did, and if so, that is disgusting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhapimp Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The world is getting far too politically correct. If you can't ostracise your fellow workers for being gay, black, or female, then what the hell else is there to do on your lunch break :( that is so wrong,.. but so right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ging Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The problem with just "treating gay people equally" is that present western society has an inherant bias towards straight people, sometimes referred to as "hetero-normativity". Simply legalising homosexuality isn't enough, as making something legal or illegal doesn't change the views of society as a whole (take speeding fines for instance - they don't make everybody opposed to driving fast). This is a classic example of hetero-nomrmativity. The worker in question was being harrassed by his colleagues, and not given fair treatment by HR, so this shows that society still needs a paradigm shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hi again Richard, yes we are still going on here because people aren't reading correctly! Did I ever once say I took anyone's side. Have I not said if this happened that it was disgraceful? Yet people continue to attack me because I say it could have happened another way! He says he got emails, but where are they? There is NO proof to back up anything he says and THAT is what I have a problem with! Why do you automatically assume everything he says is true?I did say how do we know that he didn't call himself these things and his coworkers took the cue from him that this was appropriate behavior. If you don't want to keep hearing the same thing from me, quit attacking me and my character and quit bringing up the same points over and over. What are you on about where are the emails, why would he make them public on the internet its given him enough grief as it is without the whole internet reading them. Who are you to say he has to give YOU proof, he doesnt have to do jack s*** for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) What are you on about where are the emails, why would he make them public on the internet its given him enough grief as it is without the whole internet reading them. Who are you to say he has to give YOU proof, he doesnt have to do jack s*** for you. You keep focusing on the one thing in my posts and fail to look at "the big picture" as it were. He doesn't have to show me anything you are right, but at the same time he hasn't mentioned that he has any proof to back up his allegations. It's what he hasn't said. He doesn't say that he has any proof in regards to his accusations, which, I would think would be a natural statement from someone making these kinds of claims. You are right that HE doesn't owe ME anything, but the questions for him get harder from here. HE does have to submit some sort of proof in court to back up his claims. He doesn't have to make anything public, but a simple statement that he has these things (eye witnesses, copies of the emails, etc) would have been appropriate and would have gone a long way to make his claims more believable. He also must realize that making a claim against a company whose parent company is a huge organization which has been lauded for its treatment of diverse peoples will bring everything he says and does under a great deal of public scrutiny. There will be people who read this story and automatically believe him (which I don't understand), will automatically not believe him (which I don't understand), and people who will look at this story and say, "Wait a minute, there is quite a bit missing from this story!" and be skeptical about it either way (which is where I'm at). The only reason it seems like I'm picking on this individual is because he is the only one who has said anything on the subject and therefore the only source of information. It's hard to disect and still appear to be unbiased when I can only try and figure out what is going on from one persons point of view. If there was some sort of comment from Lionhead, let me assure you, that I would be doing the same with them! I'm not some small minded country boy (even thought that's what the nick might imply) who discriminates on people because of their sexuality. I could care less what your sexual orientation is, that is your personal life and in by no means makes you the person that you are. I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone by my words, as that was not my intention. I'm simply trying to debate this case based on the facts presented without getting emotional about it either way. If ANYONE has been treated like this, then I apologize to you, as it was not right. However, that being said, I'm not the one who perpetrated those acts against you, nor have I against anyone else for that matter. The fact that I am straight should not be used against me as a way to write off my opinions on this matter nor should it be used to make the leap that because I am straight I am automatically a discriminatory biggot who hates anyone and everything that is different. That is why I feel the need to respond to posts on here, because I feel that I was being attacked and discriminated against for simply stating my views on this topic. I feel that I have been treated exactly like you say people have treated you and that is not right. Without knowing who I am, where I come from, what people I have for friends, you have taken the leap and called my character into question several times without basis, but simply because I don't accept everything this guy says at face value. Edited March 27, 2009 by rednekcowboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It certainly does have something to do with government, as it is a legal term. It isn't about religion anymore because marriage means something to the government... It doesn't matter if the churches recognize it, they likely never will, but the government should. The government awards marriage certificates, not the church. The government administers this right and it should be available to everyone. It isn't about the church or their acceptance. I do not expect that. But the government should award marriage to everyone. The difference between marriage and civil union is more than the name too by the way. Then the logical solution would be to stop the government from giving out marriage certificates. Marriage is a religious practice, the church has the right to choose who gets what regardless of who hands them out. You cannot deny that. The government should never have had the right in the first place. So in the end gay's still shouldn't be "married", ever. And the comment about them being different. They are hardly so: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm The only real differences are the divorce conditions, where such unions/partnerships are recognized and tax benefits. None of these things have to do with the general propaganda of gay couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Im ok with gays but im a bit homophobic also (which is natural for males)... I don't want them to show "sexy" males posters or talking about things they do, and if they try to flirt and go to far or touch me i freak out. But if they don't promote the fact that theire gay, every second, it is all ok... I talk with them, work with them, drink a beer with them... hell i even listen to their relationship problems they have... They should learn that they are a minority and that the world can't become gay because they are. I understand that you don't like to see sexy girls or that were talking about our things, but we are the majority. That sounds bad i know, but its the way things work... try to keep some things hidden and do them with friends after work or at home and if the coworkers thread you bad then, it is ok to go after them and sue them... It would only be "ok" to say something if a gay has posters and pics of men and is always talking about his sex adventures and is flirting with not gay men... I was being touched multible times between my legs after saying NO! and also a guy described what he loves to do to me and that he likes watching a porn with me as actor... and that isn't ok... There are bad examples on each side... also the "normals" do bad things... PS. in the german TV (im no german) there are many cool funny gays, even with their own shows and none hates them... Europe seems to be a bit more open on many things. (yes, even if the americans called us "the old europe" *g*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 So in the end gay's still shouldn't be "married", ever. Gays should be able to be "married" in a special way that protects them but they should never be allowed to adobt a child. That would harm the child in multible ways and maybe even force it into a gay life... No children but every other thing "normal" couples get... They should also try to do lesser things in gayonly locations and socialize with "normals" as long as there isn't too much that offends them... (for example too much female things and talks n places and movies) Minorities tend to separate themselve even more than the others... (the black browser for black men was a good example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 4, 2009 Author Subscriber² Share Posted April 4, 2009 A gay games developer who sued Microsoft over alleged homophobic abuse has reached a settlement with the company.Jamie Durrant, 38, orginally sued the corporation for ?45,000 for 'hurt feelings' and lost pay. According to the designer, who worked on the firm's Xbox games at the Lionhead Studios in Guildford, he was called "*** boy Jim" by colleagues, who sent mocking emails making fun of his sexuality. He alleged that the company's human resources department "blatantly disregarded" his complaints. The two parties reached a settlement agreement at an employment tribunal held this week in south London. A confidentiality clause means the terms of the settlement cannot be disclosed. A Microsoft spokesman said: "We are pleased to have reached an amicable resolution to this matter with Mr. Durrant. The terms of the settlement are confidential, but we can confirm that Mr. Durrant will not continue his employment at Lionhead as part of the agreement. "Microsoft has a longstanding commitment to diversity. We attract, recruit and respect diverse talent and we have included sexual orientation in our anti-discrimination policies for 20 years. "Our efforts have been recognised by a wide range of groups, including the Human Rights Campaign Foundation in its 2009 Corporate Equality Index. We do not tolerate breaches of our code of business conduct and take any complaints extremely seriously. "Throughout this process, those to whom Mr. Durrant brought his concerns have taken them seriously and concrete actions have been taken to address them. "Neither Mr. Durrant's sexual orientation nor the nature of his complaint had any bearing on the way it was handled." When approached by PinkNews.co.uk, Mr Durrant declined to comment. Source: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11840.html No idea where the other topic went, I guess it got deleted for arguing or something. But here's the case resolved, should make some people happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C++ Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Little bit sickening how there are people in this world truly fighting for survival each day of their lives because of discrimination, while others are so spoiled and thin skinned that they can't even take a God damned name call. Three-letter F word comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted April 4, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 4, 2009 Little bit sickening how there are people in this world truly fighting for survival each day of their lives because of discrimination, while others are so spoiled and thin skinned that they can't even take a God damned name call. Three-letter F word comes to mind. Well, those are different circumstances so it's an unfair comparison. Also, you don't know the details of what he went through. It could have been an extremely unpleasant and traumatic experience. And from what I remember, it wasn't just "name calling". There was more to it. Anyway, I guess it's nice that it has been settled. Perhaps this will encourage Microsoft to enforce better rules regarding workplace discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 4, 2009 Veteran Share Posted April 4, 2009 [Threads Merged] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macalicious Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Little bit sickening how there are people in this world truly fighting for survival each day of their lives because of discrimination, while others are so spoiled and thin skinned that they can't even take a God damned name call. Three-letter F word comes to mind. I second that; there is a fine line between work place banter and real discrimination; thanks to thin skinned individuals I end up having people walking around on egg shells around me thinking I'm one of 'those gays' who complain at the drop of a hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electronic Punk Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 What is the 3 letter f word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Little bit sickening how there are people in this world truly fighting for survival each day of their lives because of discrimination, while others are so spoiled and thin skinned that they can't even take a God damned name call. Three-letter F word comes to mind. So he shouldnt be allowed to sue just because there are people worse off than him, get a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts