<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: McCaskill changes reason for signing anti-gay petition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 14:44:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165899</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165899</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Blake.  

I think I adequately  understand the law on defamation as it applies to bloggers, but I appreciate the recommendation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Blake.  </p>
<p>I think I adequately  understand the law on defamation as it applies to bloggers, but I appreciate the recommendation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165886</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165886</guid>
		<description>Blake, its only defamation if its untrue and the person saying it knows its untrue.  Its not defamation - don&#039;t quit your day job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blake, its only defamation if its untrue and the person saying it knows its untrue.  Its not defamation &#8211; don&#8217;t quit your day job.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165870</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:18:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165870</guid>
		<description>Defamation reflecting on a person&#039;s fitness to conduct their business is defamation per se. 

If I were you I would seek legal advice from an expert. Ofttimes local bar associations will have a program where you can get legal consultation for as little as $35.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Defamation reflecting on a person&#8217;s fitness to conduct their business is defamation per se. </p>
<p>If I were you I would seek legal advice from an expert. Ofttimes local bar associations will have a program where you can get legal consultation for as little as $35.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165860</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165860</guid>
		<description>Blake, there is nothing libelous in what I wrote.  Nor, for that matter, am I making any accusations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blake, there is nothing libelous in what I wrote.  Nor, for that matter, am I making any accusations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165848</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165848</guid>
		<description>Yeah Timothy, except the petition &amp; the referendum are a part of the legislative process in Maryland. 

Every bill that passes is subject to a people&#039;s veto. 

If we&#039;re going to gain our rights legislatively we&#039;re going to have to do it through the mechanisms of the legislative process. We can&#039;t leap-frog one of the processes because it&#039;s unfair (it is) immoral (it is) or for any other reason under the sun. 

Nor can we assign motivations to her regardless of the public statements &lt;b&gt; because the petition itself are about the text of the bill and not the subject of the bill&lt;/b&gt;

So even if she were told by her pastor to sign the petition because all good Christians oppose gay rights; we have no reason insight into her motivations. 

One could, hypothetically, vote against the Bill due to the extra-legal-loopholes it provides for religious folks in defining marriage. 

The point is, you have to move a lot of items from the category of &quot;well I just don&#039;t know&quot; into the category of &quot;I know&quot; in order to make the sorts of accusations y&#039;all are making. 

Now that she&#039;s lawyered-up, I would suggest y&#039;all do the same before the libel suit is served.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah Timothy, except the petition &amp; the referendum are a part of the legislative process in Maryland. </p>
<p>Every bill that passes is subject to a people&#8217;s veto. </p>
<p>If we&#8217;re going to gain our rights legislatively we&#8217;re going to have to do it through the mechanisms of the legislative process. We can&#8217;t leap-frog one of the processes because it&#8217;s unfair (it is) immoral (it is) or for any other reason under the sun. </p>
<p>Nor can we assign motivations to her regardless of the public statements <b> because the petition itself are about the text of the bill and not the subject of the bill</b></p>
<p>So even if she were told by her pastor to sign the petition because all good Christians oppose gay rights; we have no reason insight into her motivations. </p>
<p>One could, hypothetically, vote against the Bill due to the extra-legal-loopholes it provides for religious folks in defining marriage. </p>
<p>The point is, you have to move a lot of items from the category of &#8220;well I just don&#8217;t know&#8221; into the category of &#8220;I know&#8221; in order to make the sorts of accusations y&#8217;all are making. </p>
<p>Now that she&#8217;s lawyered-up, I would suggest y&#8217;all do the same before the libel suit is served.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165249</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165249</guid>
		<description>Robert, none of us have expressed the idea that an employer should be able to dictate every aspect of an employee&#039;s life.  Instead we&#039;ve said that in the narrow cases where an employee&#039;s actions conflict directly with the job they were hired to do an employer should have the right to fire them.  If McCaskill had been hired to teach English, physics, or biology her signing of this petition would have been irrelevant to her job description and she would have been free to do so.  Her action of putting gay equality up for a vote was in direct conflict with her job as diversity counsellor so her actions were unacceptable.  Its no different than if Liberty university hired a gay man to oppose gay rights and then fired him for signing a petition asking for marriage equality - that should be okay.  If his job at liberty university were as a janitor, or teaching computer science then it wouldn&#039;t be okay to fire him for signing a petition asking for marriage equality.

This is not a matter of an employer dictating every aspect of an employee&#039;s life, it is a matter of an employer asking there employee not to undertake actions in direct opposition to the job they were hired to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, none of us have expressed the idea that an employer should be able to dictate every aspect of an employee&#8217;s life.  Instead we&#8217;ve said that in the narrow cases where an employee&#8217;s actions conflict directly with the job they were hired to do an employer should have the right to fire them.  If McCaskill had been hired to teach English, physics, or biology her signing of this petition would have been irrelevant to her job description and she would have been free to do so.  Her action of putting gay equality up for a vote was in direct conflict with her job as diversity counsellor so her actions were unacceptable.  Its no different than if Liberty university hired a gay man to oppose gay rights and then fired him for signing a petition asking for marriage equality &#8211; that should be okay.  If his job at liberty university were as a janitor, or teaching computer science then it wouldn&#8217;t be okay to fire him for signing a petition asking for marriage equality.</p>
<p>This is not a matter of an employer dictating every aspect of an employee&#8217;s life, it is a matter of an employer asking there employee not to undertake actions in direct opposition to the job they were hired to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-165230</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-165230</guid>
		<description>Ryan,

I guess you also want to live in a world where gay people can continue to get fired for being gay, because if you want to live in a world with all those caveats you mention, logic dictates that you agree with my statement.

I am more and more ashamed at how many people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their faces.  

You are all for it when it benefits YOU, but not when it benefits your enemies.

Seems everyone here bought into the idea of a perpetual &quot;Company Store&quot;, where your employer can now dictate EVERY aspevt pf your lfe.  I guess Citizens United was right, corporations ARE people, and they can tell you how and what to do, all your life, every day, every aspect.  And some here would go along with that like sheep to the slaughter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ryan,</p>
<p>I guess you also want to live in a world where gay people can continue to get fired for being gay, because if you want to live in a world with all those caveats you mention, logic dictates that you agree with my statement.</p>
<p>I am more and more ashamed at how many people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their faces.  </p>
<p>You are all for it when it benefits YOU, but not when it benefits your enemies.</p>
<p>Seems everyone here bought into the idea of a perpetual &#8220;Company Store&#8221;, where your employer can now dictate EVERY aspevt pf your lfe.  I guess Citizens United was right, corporations ARE people, and they can tell you how and what to do, all your life, every day, every aspect.  And some here would go along with that like sheep to the slaughter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-164364</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-164364</guid>
		<description>Yes Andrew, I want to live in a world where an employee at Romney HQ could be fired for having an Obama bumper sticker on his car. I want to live in a world where a supermarket can fire an employee for signing a petition banning supermarkets. And yes, I want to live in a world where an employee supposedly hired to advocate for gay rights cannot also advocate against them, even when off the clock. I guess I just want to live in a world where employers aren&#039;t forced to pay employees who are working to undermine the very jobs their getting paid to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Andrew, I want to live in a world where an employee at Romney HQ could be fired for having an Obama bumper sticker on his car. I want to live in a world where a supermarket can fire an employee for signing a petition banning supermarkets. And yes, I want to live in a world where an employee supposedly hired to advocate for gay rights cannot also advocate against them, even when off the clock. I guess I just want to live in a world where employers aren&#8217;t forced to pay employees who are working to undermine the very jobs their getting paid to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-164252</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-164252</guid>
		<description>And by &quot;petition&quot; I mean vote on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And by &#8220;petition&#8221; I mean vote on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/10/15/49728/comment-page-1#comment-164243</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=49728#comment-164243</guid>
		<description>Andrew, the right to petition the government isn&#039;t absolute or unlimited.  One doesn&#039;t get to petition the government on every action the government takes and no way should one ever have the right to vote on whether or not a minority deserves the same rights as everyone else.

You should read the first amendment sometime Andrew:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, &lt;b&gt;and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances&lt;/b&gt;

McCaskill is in &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;no way aggrieved&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; by gays having the same right to marry that she does and hence she deserves no right to petition the government to oppress others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew, the right to petition the government isn&#8217;t absolute or unlimited.  One doesn&#8217;t get to petition the government on every action the government takes and no way should one ever have the right to vote on whether or not a minority deserves the same rights as everyone else.</p>
<p>You should read the first amendment sometime Andrew:</p>
<p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, <b>and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances</b></p>
<p>McCaskill is in <b><i>no way aggrieved</i></b> by gays having the same right to marry that she does and hence she deserves no right to petition the government to oppress others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
