Do gays need special protection under the law?

Great Debates
41

I have personally had difficulties in dealing with discrimination and the thing is, I am not technically lesbian. I am dating a biological man who is very feminine. Many times, the two of us have been mistaken for lesbians. When we have gone to clubs, resturants, etc together, we have noticed people giving us dirty looks and sometimes the waiters are rude or make horrible comments about us.

Right now I work as a cashier in a resturant. While my employers don’t seem to mind my feminine boyfriend, I have had patrons make very rude coments to me. Mostly along the line of “you should just get a “real man””.

I do not allow my boyfriend to wear anything especially feminine when he comes by my work, as I am afraid that they would fire me for it.

**At the same time I see people posting ‘surveys’ like MrVisible and I just have to call it BS. He posted a ‘survey’ that stated %22 of gay people felt that they were given substandard service in restaurants and clubs. When I ask a simple question, like ‘how in the hell did the waiter know you are gay?’ there is no response. **

I have experienced discrimination because of simply holding hands with my boyfriend. I think I should have the basic rights to hold hands with my boyfriend in public and not get rude or nasty comments from ignorant people about it.

Right now, my one friend is finding especially difficult to get a job because she is transsexual. Alot of places have flat out told her that they won’t hire transsexuals. And there is nothing she can do about it.

42

Sleestak, just to add to what you’ve already been told, a friend of mine was accused of “flaunting his homosexuality” to the extent that it endangered his job. What he did was exactly the sort of thing Mr. Visible mentioned. He referred to ordinary activities such as going out to dinner or mowing the lawn with his SO. Can you imagine never being able to refer to your wife or girlfriend without running the risk of people considering you immoral for having one?

Also, the health club statistic makes a certain amount of sense. I’m assuming two things. First, the way people find out someone’s gay is through ordinary conversation about things like cooking, doing the dishes if one’s in a committed a relationship or dating, if one isn’t. Second, because Americans at any rate, are quite uptight about nudity and tend to assume there must be a sexual context, people who are so inclined will be even more uncomfortable about being in the same locker room with someone who’s gay than they would be say, being in a business conference. Also, I don’t know how much misinformation there is about AIDS today, but if people believe it’s a predominantly gay disease and it’s spread through contact with any body fluid, they could get freaked out about sharing exercise equipment which “that gay guy sweated on.”

CJ

43

I’m not sure flaunting anyone’s sexuality, whether you’re straight or gay, is appropriate in public.

BTW…the amendment passed, 4-3.

Maybe that’s another thread, but I don’t understand the fear religious fundamentalists have about gays. Such irrational fear seems, well, irrational to me.

44

ivylass: they’re afraid it will cause fire to rain upon their city, and make mere innocent bystanders turn into pillars of salt.

45

Oh my God.

I am so ashamed of my earlier ignorance.

Please forgive me.

I’m so glad this amendment passed.

You know, I kept looking at the dates of these posts, thinking, “Well, this must have happened 10 years ago, surely things have changed by now.”

:frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

46

ivyglass, as has been shown here, the definition of “flaunting” is not exactly set in stone. For some, it seems to be,“While it is alright for me to boast about the wild time I had last night at the bar, I find it abhorrent that you would even mention that fact that you have a life partner of the same sex.”

47

Okay, here goes. What about “equal protection” for employers under the association clause? (Not to mention ordinary ethics.)

48

IMHO IANAL:Freedom to associate is a personal right. Corporations do not have personal rights. Also, we provide businesses with a stable environment in which they can do business. In exchange, we ask that they conduct their business in certain ways, we ask that they not use certain unethical business practices such as bait & switch, as well as not discriminate in hiring/firing practices. If a corporation decides in needs to violate what certain locales decide is the law, they are free not to engage business there.

49

I’m confused, Libertarian. What do employers need to be protected from? And what specific ethical considerations are you referring to?

50

The SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case from Texas concerning the application of that state’s laws against sodomy. In Texas, sodomy between adults of the same sex is against the law, but permissible for heterosexual copules. The issue to be decided is whether or not the law is discriminatory against homosexuals.

If ever there was an area where government interference was unwarranted, it is in the bedroom of two (or more) consenting adults.

51

Regarding your first question, they need to be protected from abuse of their right to freely and peacefully assemble and associate with whomever they wish (First Amendment). Otherwise, why not force inter-racial, same sex, and inter-generational associations among everyone else, and not just employers?

Regarding your second question, the primary ethical consideration, in my opinion, is that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way, with their rights defined by their property. And that includes people who are employers.

52

May I just say, what an incredibly bigoted statement. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must go grope my secretary. :rolleyes:

Sua

53

Sua, I didn’t say ALL straight men do it, but for Christ’s sake, have you ever been on a construction site?

54

And what percentage of straight males in the workforce work at construction sites? Is the conduct of construction workers representative of the conduct of straight males in other industries?

Or are you projecting the negative conduct of a tiny sample group onto all straight males? You would be the first to scream to the high heavens if such a projection was made on the basis of race, gender or creed - why do you think it is acceptable on the basis of sexual orientation?

Sua

55

I don’t work at a construction site. I can say the men and women at my work are extremely professional with each other.

56

A few thoughts:

First of all, and it’s sad that I need to say this to avoid being labeled a homophobe or bigot, but here goes: I have no problems with gay people, they shouldn’t be discriminated against, gay-bashers are assholes, yadda yadda yadda.

Secondly, I have issues with this statement by Mr. Visible:

Why is it that disagreeing with the gay community on how to battle discrimination makes one a bigot? (Which is why I posted the disclaimer above, for the record.) As far as I can tell, sleestak said nothing that should be offensive to a gay person, or anyone else, unless said person is offended by disagreement and honest discourse. Which, unfortunately, seems often to be the case. Whether or not his assessment of the situation is accurate is immaterial; he doesn’t appear to be a gay-basher, and implying that he is does nothing to further the discussion. Sorry for the mini-rant, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Thirdly, I agree with Libertarian in theory, if not in practice. Ideally, I should be able to hire and fire whoever I want for whatever reasons I choose. If I’m a bigot and don’t want to hire any black folk, well, I’m an asshole, but that should be my right. However, all of this is in theory. In practice, sometimes I think such anti-discrimination laws may be a good idea, in that they can expedite the acceptance of blacks/women/jews/whatever into society, and thus protect the spirits and lives of large numbers of citizens in the process.

Fourthly, I am wary of antidiscrimination laws, due to their frequently unanticipated side effects. Anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty must admit that not everything to come out of the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to race and gender has been rosy. The unofficial (or, in some cases, official) quota systems that exist today are an atrocity, and an insult to those they’re supposed to protect and assist. It must be realized that there is a significant possibility that any new additions to the anti-discrimination laws may result in just such a quota system in the future. Companies 20 years from now may fall over themselves making sure that at least 10% of their employees are gay. Hey, better make it 15%, just in case. I’m sure nobody wants this (okay, some people may, but they’re odious opportunists of the worst sort).

Now, I’m reasonably certain that gays are more accepted today than blacks were, say, 60 years ago. Taking that survey that was posted at face value, it looks like about 20% of the gay population has experienced discrimination. Regrettable, yes, but I would bet that blacks 60 years ago would have been looking at a perecentage much closer to 100. So we need to ask ourselves a number of questions. Really, what fraction of gay people really experience discrimination? How much of this discrimination affects them in a meaningful sense that can be rectified via legislation? How long will it be before homosexuality is no longer really viewed in a negative light (at least by the vast majority of the population) if we sit back and do nothing? How long if we enact legislation? How likely is it that harmful quota systems will pop up in the future if we enact legislation? How much damage will these systems do? That’s a lot of questions, and I don’t know the answers. If I had to make a gut decision, I would choose to do nothing and let nature take its course, because I think it will be better in the long term, but my mind could easily be changed with applicable research.

One final note: I think that if action is taken, it should be on a per-state basis, rather than on a national level. Certainly, some states are going to have more problems with anti-gay discrimination than others, and because of the concerns I mentioned above, I don’t think that all states are equally in need of such legislation. This is a pipe-dream, of course, because it is going to be nationalized as soon as the states start to make headway, and there’s nothing that can be done about it.
Jeff

57

So, ElJeffe, would you support repealing anti-discrimination laws based on marital status, national origin, or religion?

58

Please, :rolleyes: it’s not that much of a minority. Men are pigs. I should know, I AM one. The crudest, most degrading sexist (and homophobic) conversation I’ve probably ever heard was in the Navy, but I also heard it in a variety of other contexts in my carreer of crappy jobs, including as a line cook in various restauraunts, a landscaper, and a lifeguard. After I got my shit together, went to college and got a better quality of job, I didn’t hear that stuff at work any more. I don’t think it was all just a class difference. I suspect that it’s a combination of being better educated (less ignorant) and just having the common sense not to expose those attitudes in the workplace.

There is no question that the experience of my friend (which was the point of my story) was that hitting on female coworkers was commonplace and accepted, but any perceived “cruising” by a gay man was met with overt hostility or even physical violence.

59

—Corporations do not have personal rights.—

Corporations are just people, people who voluntarily agree to contract out certain services with each other. Why do you think this means we should treat them differently than other people, demand more from them than we demand from, say, you? When people use money and run bussinesses, which at the very least benefits a community, not hurts it, why do they suddenly deserve obligations and attacks that would be unacceptable if directed at anyone else?

—Also, we provide businesses with a stable environment in which they can do business. In exchange, we ask that they conduct their business in certain ways, we ask that they not use certain unethical business practices such as bait & switch, as well as not discriminate in hiring/firing practices.—

We also provide a stable environment in which individuals can live: therefore, “in exchange, we demand you not be gay and destroy the moral fiber of our community.” See the problem? It’s not such an easy matter to decide what should or should not be considered “unethical” in a legal sense, vs. our own personal moral judgements. I wouldn’t think of enforcing my moral convictions via the law, and you should be thankful for that, as they would impose rather harsh obligations on all manner of people.
Some people, however, don’t seem to allow that there might be a difference, that a society might be pluralistic instead of monistic.

I don’t see how bait and switch is comparable to discrimination. In one case, defraud someone. In another, they don’t want to associate with a certain type of person, as is within all of our right, however detestable we might find the sentiment.

—If a corporation decides in needs to violate what certain locales decide is the law, they are free not to engage business there.—

Well sure, we can make all sorts of laws. That’s hardly the point.
You’ve handily switched from talking about what the law should be to simply demanding that people follow it. But as should be obvious from the case of the anti-sodomy law we are also discussing, simply having a law doesn’t make the law right. Red Lobster is contesting the law. Is that law right or wrong? What does the logic of equal treatment under the law suggest to you?

60

—Companies 20 years from now may fall over themselves making sure that at least 10% of their employees are gay. Hey, better make it 15%, just in case.—

Never worry, once the treasured categories are more than two, it’s a mathematical, not to mention a logistical, nightmare to balance out such quotas. Consider even just three simplified divisions: gender(M/F), race(B/W), sexuality (S/G). If there are quotas on all of them, a new hire to fix one category will almost certainly throw all the other balances out of whack. There is pretty much almost no way to get perfect real-time balance on all these different categories with real people in a limited qualified employee pool at any given time.