A very good question. Right now, I would have to say no. Why? I don’t think that people are typically discriminated against that much based on those three factors. Therefore, I don’t think the existence or lack thereof of laws protecting these traits is really going to have much effect on a large scale. However, I would imagine that there would be a serious backlash if the repeal of these laws was seriously suggested, as with any other anti-discrimination laws. Once you put a law like that in effect, there’s not a chance in hell of ever getting it repealed, whether it should be or not.
Also, the three issues you mentioned aren’t really hot-spots. You don’t see pro-marriage rallies going on nationwide, or the National Coalition of Atheists marching on Washington in the same way that you see pro-minority or pro-gay groups. As such, I don’t think that there are problematic quota systems based on religion or marital status like you see with race and gender. Thus, there’s not too much incentive to recall the laws, as they aren’t conspicuously harmful.
A more applicable question, perhaps, would be: If anti-discrimination laws based on marital status, national origin, and religion didn’t exist, would I be in support of establishing them? To which I would answer: no.
What I meant by “Oh, and the ‘some of my best friends are gay’ thing kinda wears thin after a while” was that I’m sick and tired of people who know a gay person thinking that that gives them license to spout off on a complex, sensitive subject that they may, in fact, be entirely ignorant of.
It’s been my experience that the most damage to the cause of equal rights for gay people has come, not from the Fred Phelps’ of the world, but from people who think that they’re okay with gay people, have no problem with gay people, but aren’t things okay the way they are? Why change them?
Saying you’re okay with gay people, yada yada yada, and then coming up with really weak justifications for making sure we don’t get equal protection under the law does not prove that you’re okay with gay people.
—was that I’m sick and tired of people who know a gay person thinking that that gives them license to spout off on a complex, sensitive subject that they may, in fact, be entirely ignorant of.—
If you’re sick and tired of it, then I’ve got a simple solution for soceity: don’t make people feel like they have to prove they don’t hate homosexuals just because they disagree with a particular political agenda you happen to hold that ostensibly helps homosexuals. Allow that people can have different opinions about politics and the legal system without slandering their characters.
You own post displays exactly this attitude: you simply ASSUME, all supposed debates cast to the wind, as true that your particular desires for action constitute the right way to acheive equal protection under the law, and that anyone who opposes them automatically brings into question wheter they are “okay with gay people” or whatever you call it.
Actually, this isn’t about how to achieve equality under the law, Apos. Having legal recourse in cases of discrimination involving housing and employment are integral to being equal under the law. If you oppose that, doesn’t that make you opposed to gays being equal under the law?
ivylass, I’ll just throw in that I have experienced discrimination at various jobs for my homosexuality (whether I was out or whether they perceived me to be, both have happened), and a dear friend was murdered because he was gay.
You have no idea how comforting it is to finally be working somewhere that not only doesn’t discriminates, but actively promotes diversity in the workplace, including among the GLBT set.
Lib, I tend to agree that personal rights vis-a-vis property have received short shrift during the late judicial activism with regard to other personal rights. But that statement bothers me.
I have no difficulty with “peaceful honest people” living their lives with minimal or no governmental interference. But what happens when the people are not peaceful or honest; when is it appropriate for government to intervene?
For example, to take the issue of freedom to associate as employer that you raise here, consider the possibility that you, I, and Sua Sponte own the only three widget factories in existence, and each have sufficient market penetration and brand-name recognition that it would be nearly impossible for Gaudere or Mr Visible to open a widget factory profitably. In addition, our hypothetical situation requires that the production of a widget requires skilled craftmanship which takes some time to produce. Under a libertarian scenario, are we justified in meeting (freedom of association) and jointly deciding what wages we will offer to our widgetmakers – effectively creating a widget trust and setting a maximum salary in the industry, given the hypothetical situation? And if these wages are insufficient for our widgetmakers to support a home and family on, we three in this scenario being more interested in the profit line than in the concerns of our employees. I am, of course, setting up a heartless-capitalist scenario – but such was, effectively, the case in several industries 100 years ago.
I’m not looking to pick a fight here, just to grasp what your principles would consider as proper recourse for the “downtrodden” widgetmakers and how they can have a legal recourse without violating our freedom as widget-magnates to run our businesses as we see fit. Such arguments are what doomed laissez-faire capitalism in the Progressive Era and the 1930s and produced the support that collective bargaining and antitrust laws historically enjoyed.
No, not necessarily. While I personally strongly support having such legal recourse in place, I can see a libertarian scenario where discriminatory landlords and employers were sufficiently castigated by public opinion and the withdrawal of custom from them (“If you won’t rent to the Black family, I’ll move somewhere else” – “Boycott Smith Industries; they fire Hispanics and gays” – etc.) to achieve the desired result through market forces rather than via statutory means.
Which, of course, is why I structured my question to Lib in terms of a hypothetical oligopoly – if you want a widget, you must deal with one of the three of us, on our terms, so boycotting would not work.
Re-Flaunting
I hate when people say that. A heterosexual couple generally has to proceed grinding and moaning before people find their display of affection to be excessive and offensive. But two men holding hands and calling eachother pet names is flaunting it.
Anectdotes-
I’ve had two rather mild experiences with prejudice against homosexuals.
My mother owned and operated a day care center for over ten years. She various people over the years. When she hired an openly gay man, a large number of parents presented her with an ultimatum. Either she fired the man(who hadn't done anything wrong or improper, who was kind and nurturing, and who was better at the job than a number of women none of the parents ever complained about), or they would pull their children out of the center. My mother told them 'Either you trust my judgement and that I can run this center, or you don't trust me and you should take your kids somewhere else.' A few did.
The second happened just a few years ago. Clive Barker was going to be speaking and taking questions at a showing of *Hellraiser* and *Lord Of Illusions*. This was part of the annual gay and lesbian film festival. I called some friends, and we arranged to go. I made sure that I had the things I wanted autographed and wore my pink yarmulke. Then, I found out my friends hadn't bought tickets. I knew we wouldn't get in. How can a personal appearance by Clive Barker not be sold out? It wasn't. In fact, there were empty seats. I wondered whether Clive wasn't popular in the area or if people just stayed away because it was a gay film festival.
That weekend, Clive was signing his latest book at a local Tower. The line for the signing was literally 3 blocks long. I do not exaggerate in the slightest. These were fans of an openly gay man. They clearly liked his work, which often included gay men, and sex scenes involving two men. These people were open minded enough to like Clive and his books. But they were too bigotted to go to an event with the word gay in the title.
IANA lawyer, however, corporation is a specific legal term that is not interchangable with business, or company. A corporation is a legal entity.
This is one area I’ve been lucky in. I’ve never been fired from a job for being openly gay, and I’ve never had a problem with any of my employers.
I did have a problem with a government-run job-training program once that threatened to throw me out unless I took my volunteer experience peer-counselling gay kids off my résumé. I was also ordered to remove a red ribbon I was wearing. I refused both times. Fortunately, the other trainees supported me, and I weight of the law on my side.
In Canada, “non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” has been “permanently read into” our Charter of Rights and Freedoms by our Supreme Court. The way the Charter is worded is:
You’ll note it doesn’t say “because they are gay” or “because they are female” or “because they are a racial minority.” The wording guarantees equality, not special protection, so that on the off chance a man or a heterosexual suffers discrimination, the Charter will protect them, too.
I disagree. To adequately homogenize society so that everyone approved of homosexual relationships would require social engineering previously undreamed of. I do not support mandating or legislating morality. The Constitution protects rude and nasty comments(to a point).
What should not be protected is the right to discriminate based upon such prejudices. It should be legal for the manager of Red Lobster to make rude and nasty comments when they’re passing you on the street. It should be illegal for them to make them on the job or to deny someone employment or benefits based upon such prejudices. I’m for alleviating the damages done to minority populations by prejudiced assholes in the majority, but I draw the line at legislating morality, for ANY group.
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?
Please, it’s not that much of a minority. Men are pigs. I should know, I AM one.
[/QUOTE]
What that proves is that you are a pig. It does not prove that straight males are pigs in general, nor (to bring this back to your original bigoted assertion) that straight males act like pigs in the workplace.
Your personal piggishness is actually less substantial evidence than the piggishness of construction workers on the issue of whether men are pigs in the workplace, as you have made your sample pool even smaller.
So, in your current experience, the straight males you work with do not act like sexual harrassers. Yet you are comfortable declaring all men to be pigs and chronic sexual harrassers. Odd.
Then he worked with sexual harrassers (or, given his emotional problems, was unable to accurately judge the nature of the conduct of his co-workers). Still has no impact on the general male of the species.
Thank you, Esprix, for highlighting the sorts of problems that non-discrimination laws (or even an overly zealous non-discrimination mentality) can lead to. “Actively promoting diversity” is a code-word for “quotas” - it means that the employer is hiring based on superficial characteristics not related to the job, rather than based solely on qualifications. No offense, but to take an example from my industry, I fail to see what a gay programmer can add to my company that a straight one can’t, aside from the ability to stave off gay-rights groups that accuse my boss of being homophobic.
Any “diversity” that would benefit a company is likely to not be of the sort that these companies actively seek out. Diversity of thought, diversity of method - these are the sorts of diversity that will help a company out. Yet this is not what is sought. It’s more desirable to have one black man, one hispanic man, one asian woman, and one gay man who all think identically than to have four white males who are extremely diverse in philosophy.
Um, excuse me, Jeff, but what the FUCK are you talking about? Please point out to me where I said there we had quotas. For the record, I work in the state of California - you know, that state that OUTLAWED Affirmative Action? Knee-jerking “diversity” into “quotas” is bullshit. Nice leap of “logic.” :rolleyes:
Now, if you’d like some FACTS about what my employer does, I would consider discussing that with you, but you know how assuming makes such an ass out of you and… well, you get the picture.
What kind of programming is going on at your company, Jeff, that the romantic life of the programmers enters into a job choice? I mean, I suppose I could see the value of having a heterosexual male programming an X-rated video game, having a better innate feel for what the (presumably heterosexual male) purchasers of the game would want (although there would be a niche market for a gay version of the game, too). But other than that, whether the programmer is straight, gay, celibate, or fond of consenting adult sheep in his private life doesn’t sound like it qualifies as a legitimate employment criterion.
Sorry if I misunderstood, Esprix, but I interpreted “actively promoting diversity” to include using “diversity” as a motivation in hiring practices, based on experience with other employers who “actively promoted diversity”.
Certainly, if I was mistaken in applying my past experiences to your company in particular, I apologize, and would appreciate it if you enlightened me as to what, precisely, your company does. My original point still stands, though, as I have plenty of experience with commitments to “diversity”, and all of the bullshit that entails.
Umm… none. That was the point. It shouldn’t enter into the hiring decision, in any way, shape or form. If the best applicants always happen to be white, heterosexual males, then so be it. If they always happen to be gay, black, female midgits, hey - whatever.
You’re right, sexual orientation shouldn’t enter into the hiring decision. So, how do you go about insuring that it doesn’t, given that some human beings have prejudices against some groups of other human beings?
How do you insure that it never happens? You don’t. There’s no possible way to make sure that discrimination never happens. You can only act to minimize it. So, how do you do that? Well, you first recognize that as people grow more accustomed to something, they will tend to view it in a less negative light. People didn’t stop perceiving blacks as inferior because the government passed some laws. They stopped pereceiving blacks as inferior because as they were integrated into society, everybody saw that they were just people, too. The more society began to see them as people, rather than as black people, the less justification they had for prejudice. Gradually, racism dwindled, until it was the comparitively rare incidence it is today.
Now, gays are in a similar, though milder, version of where the blacks used to be. They are discriminated against, to some extent, though it’s not as severe as it was around the era of the Civil Rights movement with racial minorities. So, we need to determine if the situation is severe enough to warrant explicit laws on the matter, with the risk that such laws may serve to continually remind people that gays are a “protected class”. And we need to look to the long-term, as well. It’s not just a matter of whether or not passing a law tomorrow will help gays tomorrow. It’s a matter of whether or not a law passed tomorrow will still be helping gays in 5 years, or 10, or 20, and if not, to what extent will it be hurting them then? If such a law was hurting them, could it be repealed?
Sorry, MrVisible, but the question is not a trivial one, and it requires a non-trivial answer.
Jeff
The fact that I get rude comments while just walking down the street shows that I can not expect work places to be tolerant of me either. I dare not be as open with my co-workers with my relationships because of my fear of being fired.
No. It’s my contention that the laws were indirectly, not directly, responsible for the changes in the public’s perception of blacks and women. Do you really think that people stopped being prejudiced because the government told them to? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was a side effect of having been placed in close proximity, as a result of anti-discrimination laws? The laws were certainly a good thing, but they were the catalyst for change, not the reactant. Had those laws never been enacted, society would have eventually grown to accept minorities, just nowhere nearly as fast as it did.
For example, gays today witness much more acceptance today than they did, say, 50 years ago. This, without any anti-discrimination laws to come to their aid. Only more close contact, and less ignorance. You can’t legislate cultural changes. You can only manipulate situations to try to induce them to happen on their own.
Jeff