Omaha Forums

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:CB? Why in God's name?

Nebraska laws are homophobic.

Well that's at least an explanation!

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Well that's at least an explanation!

I know at least 6 people that have moved out of the state because of that (either specifically because of that or as a "last straw" that made it easy to make the decision), so it's not implausible.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if this influenced their (the Dixie Quicks) decision or not.

with any luck, more and more of omaha's artsy downtown scene, and all the gheys, will cross the river to CB. let the west o frat boys have downtown. there's nothing left with the antiquarium gone

councilbluffspride . org

Based on what i gathered from him, it seems strictly business-based.  They must be getting a decent deal for the amount of space they are getting (3 full bays across from barley's) and they are going to try to get some different traveling art exhibits to compliment the local art they will have.  Additionally, they will be able to expand their business by hosting parties/receptions, and they still will be in an area with a lot of charm.  

Also, look forward to more from him in CB during the next few years ;)

The Omaha City Council won't even pass a non discrimination ordinance, for god's sake.  What message does that send to big businesses looking to expand or relocate?

A pretty bad one.

I guess my comment was getting at the broader spectrum of legislation addressing hiring and discrimination in the workplace. Although, largely going unspoken because of political incorrectness (many times a fancy word for "telling it like it is"), I think we all know where I'm going with that.

Are Omaha's civic leaders inherently bigoted? Maybe, at one point in time or another, they were. But I'm not going to sit on a public forum and suggest they are now and are actively out to limit the contributions of gays in the Omaha community. I think it would take a bit more than just a lack of anti-discrimination legislation to prove such a bold statement. Maybe you have some more convincing proof?

Do businesses pass up locating in Omaha because of a lack of anti-discrimination laws? Again, I'm doubting it and I've never heard anything one way or another. In fact, I've never heard anything but positive reasons to do business in Omaha. Again, this is probably one of those times where you would need to cite an example or at least some testimony from business leaders before a claim like this is made.

I find it weird that there is no compromise with discrimination claims. Once the slightest amount of discrimination is perceived or fabricated, then it's all the sudden real and someone has to pay for it - usually with their wallets and reputation.

ricko wrote:Huh?

If your argument (one I haven't heard since the 1980's, btw)

I'm going to call bull-|expletive| on this one in particular. My argument is alive and well and is currently reversing outdated equal opportunity laws around the country. Nice try, though.

Anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity are not the same thing.

I personally don't believe quotas are necessary anymore.  That does not mean discrimination should be allowed.

Big E wrote:Anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity are not the same thing.

I personally don't believe quotas are necessary anymore.  That does not mean discrimination should be allowed.

Let's try this again (making my post)

Maybe we have different definitions between equal opportunity and discrimination.

Anti-Discrimination acts include everything from medical/disability, immigration, civil rights, education and employment. Equal opportunity was formed as a basis of equality in the hiring process, therefore, limiting an organization's ability to discriminate. (what am I missing here?)

S33 wrote:Anti-Discrimination acts include everything from medical/disability, immigration, civil rights, education and employment. Equal opportunity was formed as a basis of equality in the hiring process, therefore, limiting an organization's ability to discriminate. (what am I missing here?)

I think of Equal Opportunity as just that, where race/gender/ethnicity/disability/etc. are neutral factors in hiring decisions.

Affirmative Action, on the other hand, is an often-misunderstood set of policies to deal with historical discrimination.

Yeah.  We'll give them their rights, but they just darn well better behave themselves.

Thanks mom.

ricko wrote:Yeah.  We'll give them their rights, but they just darn well better behave themselves.

Thanks mom.

Yeah, because that was exactly my point.

So...  If I'm applying for a job in downtown Omaha, how would anybody know whether I'm gay or straight, unless I told them, or made a point of making it clear?

DeWalt wrote:So...  If I'm applying for a job in downtown Omaha, how would anybody know whether I'm gay or straight, unless I told them, or made a point of making it clear?

Not relevant how they find out.  Only relevant if they discriminate because of it.

Big E wrote:

DeWalt wrote:So...  If I'm applying for a job in downtown Omaha, how would anybody know whether I'm gay or straight, unless I told them, or made a point of making it clear?

Not relevant how they find out.  Only relevant if they discriminate because of it.

Well, actually it is relevant how they find out.  I've been involved in enough hiring processes to know that I absolutely cannot ask, "Hey, are you gay?"  That's almost a guarantee of legal action, and not at the local level.  Beyond that, I know for a fact that there are a lot of gay people who don't look, talk, or act any different than straight people.  So unless I'm told, how would I even know if an interviewee is gay?

That's my only concern about this non-discrimination ordinance.  It seems like plowing ground that has already been plowed several times.

^^  Why are you "wowwing" here?

I hear so much complaining about homophobia, and how gay people can't get hired because they're gay.  My point is simple:  How does anyone even know they're gay, unless they're doing something that makes it obvious?


About a month ago my wife & I took a short vacation to San Francisco.  When we came back, the first thing her dad asked was, "Well, did you say gays everywhere?"  To which I answered, "I don't know."  A select few make a point of being obvious.  Most, however, are simply living their lives like everyone else does.

Big E wrote: That's kind of my point... if it's legal, why should someone be able to discriminate against it?  Should I be able to fire people because of a company-wide "no fat chicks" policy?  

Yes. You should.

Big E wrote: It kind of seems like the argument against protecting a class is to maintain employers' ability to discriminate.

I think the main argument it is that we all know how often discrimination laws are misused and cause irreparable harm to individuals and employers, and many feel that protected classes further enables a person to use it as their "ace-in-the-hole." I don't think there is some concerted effort by employers to maintain a workforce of straight, Caucasian males.

Statistically, I would guess discrimination cases shake out kind of like rape.  I can't prove it, but I'm betting far more issues of blatant discrimination go unreported (or even unnoticed) than companies are harmed by false accusations.

Obviously, there should be some serious recourse for false accusations, because if someone can just throw that accusation around for spite or potential financial gain, we've got a problem.  That's where the concern should be focused - not on keeping the discrimination laws off the books.

(And no, I'm not saying rape and discrimination are the same.  I'm hypothesizing the statistics and legal process is similar.)

Big E wrote:That's kind of my point... if it's legal, why should someone be able to discriminate against it?  Should I be able to fire people because of a company-wide "no fat chicks" policy?  

Many companies won't hire smokers.  Given that fat people are a bigger drain on health costs, I certainly expect that to happen soon.

joeglow wrote:Many companies won't hire smokers.  Given that fat people are a bigger drain on health costs, I certainly expect that to happen soon.

"Luckily" smokers die sooner, and there's a LOT more fat people.

So when all the smoke has cleared and dust has settled, does the "non discrimination ordinance" do anything but add more laws on top of multiple laws that already say the same thing?

[quote="S33"][quote="ricko"]Huh?

If your argument (one I haven't heard since the 1980's, btw) [/quote]

I'm going to call bull-|expletive| on this one in particular. My argument is alive and well and is currently reversing [b]outdated[/b] equal opportunity laws around the country. Nice try, though.[/quote]




I don't take well to people calling me a liar.  I know it may be hard for you, with your limited experience in life, to imagine that there are, and have been, places in the country that aren't struggling with antiquated attitudes and arguments about gays and laws protecting them.  It's a non-issue where I live, and has been for quite some time.  I've even lived in jurisdictions that have been represented by a gay state delegate (what we call our state representatives), and a gay county supervisor.  The DC city council has 2 gay city councilmen, one of whom even ran initially as a Republican (some of our Republicans tend to be more liberal than Nebraska's Democrats).  

Regarding the comment you have a hard time believing-----when I was writing my initial post on this thread, I really had to think about how long ago it was, since I'd moved here, that I'd heard your argument (over gays in the workforce), hence the time-frame.  That kind of argument doesn't fly here.  It may be fodder for HR departments or 'bar-talk' in Omaha, I wouldn't know.  I would hope not.

Well, since your level of sophistication and enlightenment are so far superior to those of us "bar-talkers" in Omaha, why would you bother yourself with an Omaha forum? Isn't that kind of like a pediatric surgeon sitting out in the smoking area with the janitors?

And I never called you a liar, just so full of liberal cr-ap you are unable to conceive the relevance of any opinion which conflicts with your own extreme pro-gay agenda. Look, I get that you are obviously gay and you live in DC, wow, congrats. You even have a gay state delegate (what you would call a state representative), but you're just as closed minded as any conservative with your defensiveness anytime someone isn't kissing the rear of your opinions.

You are the type who hate others because you think they might hate you, and you are EXACTLY the type my comments in this thread were directed toward. Your employer must be terrified - safe to say, you probably have job security.

Again, congrats on living in DC. A city built and jobs sustained by pillaging the rest of the country.

Jeez. Calm down already.  If calling someone a bullsh*tter isn't the same as calling someone a liar, I don't know what is.  I grew up in Omaha and I plan to retire there, so I have a stake in what happens in Omaha and the quality of life that exists there for people like me.  I evidently touched a raw nerve in you somewhere.  "Extreme pro-gay agenda"? I'm not sure what that means, but I guess in your world anything pro-gay is extreme.  Actually, I'm pretty mainstream where I live.  Am I "full of liberal sh*t"?  You bet.  I'd respond to the other stuff but it's just too off-the-wall.

You couldn't have came off as any more of an elitist snob in the previous post and it was about as condescending as they come. I can't imagine why that would "touch a nerve"...

S33 wrote:You couldn't have came off as any more of an elitist snob in the previous post and it was about as condescending as they come. I can't imagine why that would "touch a nerve"...

Just take a deep breath, I won't even begin to type what your last post came off as...

icejammer wrote:

S33 wrote:You couldn't have came off as any more of an elitist snob in the previous post and it was about as condescending as they come. I can't imagine why that would "touch a nerve"...

Just take a deep breath, I won't even begin to type what your last post came off as...

Don't care, your opinion lost it's luster after the whole "Council T*cky" debacle.

[quote="S33"]You couldn't have came off as any more of an elitist snob in the previous post and it was about as condescending as they come. I can't imagine why that would "touch a nerve"...[/quote]






Elitist snob? Hardly.  Never been called that before.  At my age I pretty much know who I am.  "Condescending"?  Only toward people who say nasty things about me.  

BTW, you haven't exactly been Mr. Humility on this forum.

Fair enough. I think this topic has run it's course, or maybe it can be merged with the fire department thread.

S33 wrote:

icejammer wrote:

S33 wrote:You couldn't have came off as any more of an elitist snob in the previous post and it was about as condescending as they come. I can't imagine why that would "touch a nerve"...

Just take a deep breath, I won't even begin to type what your last post came off as...

Don't care, your opinion lost it's luster after the whole "Council T*cky" debacle.

Debacle?  Dang, I must have missed some good insults before they got trashed.

And perhaps you should care how you're coming off sounding as.....

icejammer wrote:

S33 wrote:

icejammer wrote:

S33 wrote:You couldn't have came off as any more of an elitist snob in the previous post and it was about as condescending as they come. I can't imagine why that would "touch a nerve"...

Just take a deep breath, I won't even begin to type what your last post came off as...

Don't care, your opinion lost it's luster after the whole "Council T*cky" debacle.

Debacle?  Dang, I must have missed some good insults before they got trashed.

And perhaps you should care how you're coming off sounding as.....

Just don't go off topic in the CB threads.

What taxes do tax-exempt organizations pay?

Big E wrote:What taxes do tax-exempt organizations pay?

1. Payroll taxes.
2. Social Security taxes.
3. Vehicle registration fees.
4. Taxes & fees on utilities, street assessments, etc.

Should I go on?


Now...  Are you POd about colleges - even private colleges - being tax exempt?  Or are you just mad because churches are?  And are municipalities going bring in more tax revenue by taxing churches, or by taxing other non-profit entities?

PO'd?  No. But I've said on here before that eliminating non-profits (as a status) would be a good place to start in our budget woes.

Big E wrote:PO'd?  No. But I've said on here before that eliminating non-profits (as a status) would be a good place to start in our budget woes.

We agree on something, imagine that. I find myself directly competing against non-profits in my field of business where npo's have no business operating. Imo, many non-profits are simply a structure the overpay "certain" employees. (cough...cough...downtown YWCA anyone?) And trade unions tax exempt? What a joke.

Big E wrote:PO'd?  No. But I've said on here before that eliminating non-profits (as a status) would be a good place to start in our budget woes.

So you're for eliminating the Non-Profit status of all schools and colleges?

No, I'm not.  But because of all of the other horse |expletive| organizations that abuse the tax exempt status I have to swallow that pill to not be a hypocrite.  I'd much rather see public education pay taxes as anyone else would as a part of the operations, and get it back in some sort of grant.  Granted, I haven't put a lot of thought in to just how this would work, so don't beat me up for not having a legislative bill ready.

Private schools that want to work outside the public system can fend with the rest of us.

Big E wrote:No, I'm not.  But because of all of the other horse |expletive| organizations that abuse the tax exempt status I have to swallow that pill to not be a hypocrite.  I'd much rather see public education pay taxes as anyone else would as a part of the operations, and get it back in some sort of grant.  Granted, I haven't put a lot of thought in to just how this would work, so don't beat me up for not having a legislative bill ready.

Private schools that want to work outside the public system can fend with the rest of us.

And there's the problem.

Anti-religious people love to yell about making churches pay taxes - which they do anyway (except property tax).  But doing so would open a HUGE "can of legal worms" that would affect everything from colleges, to public schools, to food pantries & homeless shelters.  

Also, making churches pay property taxes probably won't net much income anyway.  There's a little church up the hill from me.  Nice little building that sits on probably 3 acres.  But what's its fair market value?  Probably the value of the land, minus the cost of razing the building.  And that's not much.  So let's go ahead and assess that church about $1,000 per year in property tax.  It won't change much for churches, but it will have a huge ripple effect everywhere else.

It is interesting that you mention private schools...  They actually do fend for themselves.  For the most part, they operate on a tiny fraction of the amount of money given to public schools, but turn out better educated graduates.  Perhaps it's not churches' tax-exempt status we should be yelling about.