I’ll second that. I would even think it’s offensive for a lot of people, me included.
Yup. Teena R. Brandon/Brandon Teena. Very sad story. I feel for her girlfriend.
The Sheriff/Deputy who handled the call was sued along with the county office or somesuch, and the family awarded something along the lines of $17,000. The Sheriff admitted he “probably” should have acted differently.
As for the “you asked for it” excuse, I group that with “boys will be boys” and “if I didn’t see it, it didn’t happen” as statements which don’t fly. Ever. IMO, and ITO of a lot of people I know.
The best candidate is the one with the best training, skills and temperament for the job. All of those things are separate from gender identity, sexual orientation and appearance.
–In Mexico the police are similar to our Army. They may be considered representative of the government.
Sweet_Lotus
I’m sure you mean well as you presume to have an insight into the lesbian midget’s intentions.
Pray that no one ever presumes such insight into yours, else you could find yourself in her shoes: needing to hire an informant to infiltrate a white-slavery ring among lesbian midgets, and being forced by well meaning strangers to hire a heterosexual Latino man whose training in infiltration is the highest there is, whose skills in espionage are legend, and whose temperament is glaborously even.
Libertarian: in your example the candidate isn’t the best-qualified, simple as that. When the job requires a certain ethnicity of size or whatnot (as in your case), then it’s not discrimination. If it doesn’t, it is.
Hate to play the race card, but employers should be allowed to discriminate by race? Geez, that sounds like a paradise of personal freedom there :rolleyes:
OK, we have a problem. You say that we must hire the candidate with the highest qualifications, regardless of etc. But how do we decide what the highest qualifications are?
What if two guys want to mow my lawn. Can’t I pick whoever I want to mow my lawn? Even if I make a decision based on whim? What if I like one guy more…he’s more friendly, say?
The point is that if I can set the qualifications then I can hire whoever I want. I can say, “He was friendlier, so I hired him.” But that means that I can discriminate, since I decide what the qualifications are.
So you say that is wrong, I have to hire the best candidate, and since if I decide who the best candidate is then I can use any criteria I like, and exclude whoever I like. So you must decide for me what the qualifications for lawn-mowing are, and must evaluate the candidates for me, and you will decide who I should hire or not hire, since if I do it myself I can discriminate. Even if you tried to do this in good faith it would not work, and in reality what happens is that you take over my business.
The thing is, most companies exist to make money. Some business owners will discriminate against people. Many won’t. The ones who don’t discriminate will make more money, since they are hiring the “best candidate”, defined as the candidate who makes them the most money. Capitalism is the natural enemy of bigotry.
Which assumes that gender identity, sexual orientation, and appearance has no bearing on the job in question.
I know you don’t like it, (I don’t like it either… means I have to cut my hair and shave if I want a job), but there are a significant number of people in this country who don’t want their grocery store cashier to be covered with tattoos and piercings, and wearing a skirt when he’s obviously a man. If a company were forced to hire such a person for such a job, the company stands a real risk of losing profits because of it.
As much as it pains me to say it, appearances DO matter, even though they shouldn’t.
(By the way, I know that just because someone chooses to cross-dress or likes members of the same sex, it doesn’t mean that they’ll dress or appear “outrageous” or “flamboyant” or whatever Ricki Lake term you want to apply to it.)
Have you forgotten your username?
You can point out the libertarian point of view any time you want. I think it’s disingenous however to say “I was just answering a question.”
The question was:
“Is it still legal for employers and landlords to discriminate on the basis of being transgendered (crossdressing, transsexual, etc.)?”
Your answer was: “People should be constrained from initiating force or fraud, but people who are peaceful and honest should be free to discriminate with respect to their own association with other people using any criteria they please.”
I’m sure a person of your intelligence can see the difference between “Is it legal” or “Should it be legal”? Using logic (based on reason, the only valid epistemology :D) the distinction should be clear.
I am not disputing your right to try to provoke a libertarian discussion in an unrelated thread. I disagree with you when you try to innocently pretend “I was doing nothing of the sort.”
Arnold
Red herring.
What I point out is my view. That that view is libertarian is a coincidence you will simply have to live with so long as I am free to post my views here. I answer questions according to my world-view.
Do you not do the same?
In that case, I submit the question belonged in GQ. As I understand it, topics here are subject to debate. I believe this is the appropriate forum to raise such issues as should it be legal even when it is.
With all due respect, your presumption does not constitute my pretense. I need innocently pretend nothing since there is nothing I am quilty of except stating my opinion.
Do you suggest that we go back to the days when I must start a new thread, “The Ethics of Queer Rights” whenever I simply wish to speak my mind about a topic?
Your heart is in the right place, SL, and I mostly agree with you, but what about a case in which appearance DOES matter in terms of selling a product? Two recent TV shows spring to mind in this case . . . one in which a man with a brain/speech problem, a cross-dresser and a rather overweight woman sued the owner of the graphic design company at which they had worked prior to being fired. The other in which a woman who had undergone double mastectomy surgery was fired from a position in a lingerie department.
In both cases I can see someone’s appearance hampering their ability to sell a product. In both cases I can also see alternatives to their being fired. But sometimes appearance is needed to sell a product.
Note that I don’t condone hiring or not hiring based on appearance. I just think it’s a bit . . . innocent . . . to say that appearance and selling a product are independent of eachother.
AW: Have you forgotten your username?
Libertarian: Red herring.
Of course. My (sarcastic) comment was poking fun at your assertion “I am not talking about libertarianism, you are and the proof is you were the first one to use the word ‘libertarian’.” Just because you didn’t actually type in the word ‘libertarian’ doesn’t mean you’re not trying to introduce another discussion on libertarian issues.
Libertarian: «What I point out is my view. That that view is libertarian is a coincidence you will simply have to live with so long as I am free to post my views here. I answer questions according to my world-view.
Do you not do the same?»
Yes. Here’s the difference as I see it: for example, one of my strong interests is human rights (I am a member of Amnesty International). I mention the Amnesty International point of view in threads where it’s relevant. But I don’t go into threads unrelated to the issue, for example a thread about George W. Bush or Al Gore, and start discussing how the candidates need to put human rights at the top of their agenda and should join Amnesty International.
Libertarian: «Do you suggest that we go back to the days when I must start a new thread, “The Ethics of Queer Rights” whenever I simply wish to speak my mind about a topic?»
Please see above. I don’t deny your right to post whatever you want, I personally think that it would be more interesting if you could discuss the issue without trying to turn it into another libertarian debate. But to each their own.
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 08-27-2000 at 07:44 PM]
Arnold
I am not introducing a discussion on libertarian issues. Presently, I am defending myself against the assertions in your hijack, but prior to that I was stating my opinion on the matter raised by Tracer.
I was wrong. You weren’t the first to use the “L” word. ExTank was when he said, “I’m more Libertarian (and yes; I know about the problems of getting a working Libertarian government) in my politics though, and I haven’t practiced any organized religion in over 14 years.”
Perhaps you could take up your cause, which I’m afraid escapes my comprehension, with him. If I understand your point, that the topic of Queer Rights merits no comment either from a political or an ethical view, then he gets two demerits, one for using the “L” word and one for using the “R” word.
[Previewed by Libertarian on 08-27-2000 at 8:00 PM]
In the first case, I don’t see how the people’s appearance was related to anything, couldn’t they design as well as anyone else? Or were they in a different position with the company?
As for the second; 1) They make prostheses for women who have had mastectomies and 2)I don’t see how not being able to use a product hinders anyone from being knowledgeable about it.
Is it racial, sexual, and age discrimination if a movie script calls for “A black male age 30-40” to fill a particular role?
if all people had fair opportunities to get jobs it would not cause companies to lose profits becasue they would all have such people on their staff. there would be no place to go to avoid it.
as to those people who don’t want their grocery store clerks to be covered with tattos and peircings and skirts, perhaps there are people that do not wish their customers to dress like wasps or yuppies or conformists. should they have any right to tell them how they can or can’t dress??? you’d think that was insane i venture to guess.
this same excuse was used against racial discrmination. “oh, but some people won’t shop at store with a negro clerk!”
it didn’t play then, and it won’t play today. each person has a basic human right to define adn decorate themself as they wish. we each own our individual life and body.
Except, of course, people who own businesses. You own their lives and bodies (including their brains), right?
i do not own a businessperson’s mind, life, or body. and she does not own mine. could it be any simpler??
as i understand your statement you think the businessowner has the right to tell her employees who they are. i can’t imagine you believe that the employees can tell the owner how she presents herself. your statement seems to imply that you think i believe that i as an employee could tell my employer what tattos, peircing, and clothing s/he can wear. i think nothing of the kind!!
before you tell me what i can or can’t wear, when it is i told you what you could wear?? i possess your life/mind/body no more than you own mine.
Then you misunderstand. What I think is that the business owner has the right to decide who will be her employees and who will not, just as a homeowner has the right to decide who will be her guests and who will not.
First case: these people were involved in a pretty heavy way with customer interaction. So yes, their appearance did something to influence the amount of goods that was sold. Their appearance had hampered their sales somewhat. Beyond that I don’t really remember.
Case two: Think about this: someone with no legs trying to sell pants. I know, it doesn’t make much sense, and I don’t agree with it, but that was the show. Not me.