Here is the FDA straight from the horses mouth.
They maintain that there is no question, whatsoever, that there is some benefit to the policy. Quoted:
Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.*
[QUOTE=Spartydog]
They can refuse you even if you have only travelled in certain countries.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes they can. I’ve been giving blood regularly for the past 6 years or so. This last August I went to Belize for a week, and now I can’t give blood for a year, as Belize is a “malaria country”.
The American Red Cross is not a government, or agency of the government, so they are not bound by constitutional considerations. Even if they were, the United States Constitution has not been read to extend extra protection to those who are males who have sex with other males, so there would be no constitutional issues.
The federal government has never implemented any statute that makes it criminal to discriminate against men who have sex with men. Even in a state that has a constitutional or statutory prohibition against businesses discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation, it’s quite possible the practice would still pass legal muster, either because they could show that it’s a least-restrictive method for avoiding a significant problem, or because they would establish that they aren’t discriminating against sexual orientation, but, rather specific sexual practices.
Thus, regardless of the moral issues involved, the legal issues are pretty clear.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
The federal government has never implemented any statute that makes it criminal to discriminate against men who have sex with men.
[/QUOTE]
Does this mean I can put an ad in the help wanted section of the news paper saying “looking for an experienced plumber, MSM;s need not apply…”?
[QUOTE=copperwindow]
Does this mean I can put an ad in the help wanted section of the news paper saying “looking for an experienced plumber, MSM;s need not apply…”?
[/QUOTE]
yes, yes it does.
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
Doing a bit more research on the topic, it seems that the MSM infection risk might not be on as shaky ground as I first thought. It’s still a significant problem. From the CDC
That’s one Hell of a percentage. All donations are tested for HIV, but I don’t suppose I can blame the FDA for wanting a second level of protection in preventing HIV infection.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly what are MSM’s? President Clinton claimed blow jobs don’t count, is that true?
O.K., I was starting to suspect it before, but now you’re just fucking with us.
There is a word for posting bullshit just to get a response.
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
O.K., I was starting to suspect it before, but now you’re just fucking with us.
There is a word for posting bullshit just to get a response.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not posting bullshit just to get a response, I’m asking did the CDC take oral sex into consideration when coming up with those numbers?
Can I put out an ad saying “looking for a receptionist to answer phones, those in wheelchairs and those who limp need not apply…”, since I’m not excluding everyone who is disabled?
How is this even remotely germane to blood donation?
It doesn’t the original question has transposed to this question. Should I start a new thread?
Yes, you should.
Didn’t I already say that?
In some jurisdictions, employers cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just because it’s not federal doesn’t man there aren’t laws in some places. Whether that includes individual contractors hired by an individual rather than, say, a corporation or university hiring an employee, I couldn’t say.