I couldn’t make it through the gaybashing thread.
I don’t think this law will stop prejudice. But perhaps it will allow people to at least be able to count on having a job and a home.
—Having legal recourse in cases of discrimination involving housing and employment are integral to being equal under the law.—
What sort of Orwellian mangle is this? It’s only integral to being equal under the law if we hold that the law should force some people to associate with others in the first place! I’m not for disallowing gays to sue for discrimination in housing and employment when women can. If you are going to allow suits on discrimination at all, it might as well be open ended (i.e. I am able to perform the job/buy the house, the traits he claims are relevant to refusing me are, in reality, irrelevant, and the employer/seller has no right to fail to consider me…), not proffered only explicit groups, with other groups having to fight their way in.
What I’m taking a position against in this thread is people being able to sue for discrimination on those basises period. In my opinion, these are matters of association, to be combatted not by the coercion of the government, but by free responses of civil society.
—If you oppose that, doesn’t that make you opposed to gays being equal under the law?—
No. Gays and bigots both should both have the right to associate with, work with, marry, have sex with, have kids with, etc. whomever they wish. Likewise should people who want, with their own powers of association, be able to boycott people (like bigots) with whom they disagree. I’ve never been anything BUT for homosexuals being equal under the law in all respects: and not just homosexuals. Everyone. The question is: “what laws?” And in my mind, the laws we are discussing are themselves violations of the equal protection principle.
Actually, elJeffe, nondiscrimination laws usually become necessary when people start to question whether discrimination is appropriate. It’s then that people who are (a) in a position to discriminate and (b) in favor of discrimination start doing it even more actively to ensure that the upstarts don’t get anywhere.
The real problem is that far too many businesses are not willing to live up to the ethical (if not legal) obligation not to discriminate at all on irrelevant criteria. Since they are not willing to live up to this obligation and block (in most states) efforts to impose this obligation in law, we have to make do with imposing a more limited obligation. The simple fact is that very few businesses hire strictly on merit. Virtually all use some factor in addition to, or entirely in substitution to, merit, for hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.
Curiously enough, our President has fought long and hard this last session of Congress for the right to hire and fire employees of the Homeland Security Department without regard to merit. If this is what our government stands for, is it any wonder our private businesses are no better?
If you want gay people to be equal under the law, and they’re not currently, then we need to make sure that the laws reflect that by making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal when it comes to employment and housing.
Since laws are already in place to govern discrimination in housing and in the workplace, it seems to me your point about laws governing association is pretty much another debate altogether.
You want to change the way the whole government works, please feel free to start a thread about that. Meanwhile, I’m very much interested in ways to realistically change the existing system so as to address some of the specific problems that currently face real people. It’s not very helpful to be constantly sidetracked into discussing utopian societal ideals.
Good thread, ivylass. I’d like to respond to two of your earlier comments, if I may.
I took a look at the local news article you cited in your original post, and there’s a funny thing about it - it goes on about how “gays and lesbians are a step closer to being added to the city’s anti-discrimination protection laws”, which does sound like the dread “special rights.” But further down, where it mentions the actual amendment, it becomes clear that the by-law will prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” To my understanding, that isn’t a code for gays and lesbians; it’s a prohibition on any discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether gay, lesbian, straight, bi, etc. In other words, it’s an equal rights provision, protecting everyone.
So why does the paper refer to it as a gay and lesbian protection? It could be explained as sloppy reporting, but I doubt that. I would assume it’s because the paper is making the realistic assessment that gays and lesbians are the ones who are most likely to need it. However, the bottom line is that it sounds like the amendment will provide equal protection.
By way of analogy, equal protection under the U.S. Constitution is more frequently invoked by minorities, but it’s not restricted to that, as the Bakke case showed - a white guy challenging racial quotas on equal protection grounds.
Well, yes and no - it depends what “flaunting sexuality” means. If it means “doing it in the streets and scaring the horses” then yes, I would agree with that statement. But what about:
[ul]
[li]a school having a dance where young people are encouraged to come with girlfriends and boyfriends; buying an issue of Cosmo that says “Girls - 57 ways to drive him wild!” on the cover;[/li][li]putting an advertisement in the local paper announcing an engagement, complete with a picture of the happy couple holding hands;[/li][li]inviting all your friends and family for a public ceremony, in a church no less, declaring that you are entring into a permanent, committed sexual relationship (i.e. - getting married);[/li][li]announcing to everyone in your office that your wife’s pregnant.[/li][/ul]All of these are very public declarations of sexual relationships and activities. If that’s not “flaunting” when done by a straight couple, is it “flaunting” when done by a gay couple?
Do homosexuals need “special” protection under the law? No. Do they need equal protection? Yes.
But under WHAT sort of law seems a pretty darn relevant debate. You’re talking about the justice of changing the law: so am I. Neither of us are sitting here simply being descriptive. Both of us are being normative with regards to the law.
—Meanwhile, I’m very much interested in ways to realistically change the existing system so as to address some of the specific problems that currently face real people.—
Heavens: perhaps you should accuse me of taking a too mechanistic a perspective as well? Or any other evasive jargon you can conjure up?
It’s not entirely clear to me what you’re “interested” in, but whatever it is, it’s no more about realistic changes to help real people than what I’m talking about, unless you define “real people” as only those in certain politically approved groups, to the exclusion of all others. My question is: should employers, like employees already are, be able to decide who to associate with? You claim that this is out of the scope of this discussion. I respond: a demand for consistency based on equal treatment, rights, or obligation in one area looks a little hypocritical when you aren’t even willing to consider what consistency along that exact same principle might mean in other areas.
Apos, it can be difficult for the general public to know if a company discriminates and, if so, how to take action. Here are two examples.
Several years ago, a realtor in my city was sued for refusing to show rental apartments to black people. During the investigation which led to this lawsuit, two couples, one white, one black with identical income profiles asked to view apartments. The company had a consistent pattern of showing apartments to the white couple, but not the black couple. If it hadn’t been for the lawsuit and the accompanying publicity, I know I wouldn’t have known about it.
As a second example, I used to work for a company which made a component of computer chips. This company practiced discrimination based on race and sex. I know their product, but I have no way of knowing if it was used to build my home pc, and I can’t know unless I tear it apart, and I might not know even then.
While I can see the argument that employers should be allowed to decide who they’ll associate with, I’ll also argue that, potential employees may have no way of knowing that employers are discriminatory until they’re employed. Also, employees have fewer choices. I’m unemployed right now. If I get a job offer, I either have to take it or lose my unemployment benefits. In this job market, I’m afraid I literally cannot afford to let discriminatory practices be a factor; I wish I could. When I went to work for the company I mentioned earlier, I was doing temp work, and I was down to about $7.00 USD. Again, I had to work.
CJ
I’d say that issue has already been decided; the presence of anti-discrimination legislation speaks volumes.
Obviously not, since when they had the right to do so they abused it egregiously, to the great harm of society.
This does not necessarially follow. It is possible to be a bigot in your personal life and still be professional and use nonprejudiced standards when in the workplace. The distinction here is between fair treatment and unfair treatment. I know a good number of people who hold prejudices against some groups but would not presume to use their authority in the framework of their profession to suit their own worldview. I also admit there are people who would and that is why I support fairness laws, but I do not support them applying to the public in general as the statement I objected to seemed to imply.
In short, I draw a distinction between bigotry of thought and bigotry of deed. One should be legal(as per free speech) and one should be illegal(as per ammendment XIV). This part of your post
did not mention fair treatment in the workplace, in services you’ve paid a fair price for, or anything other than “public”. I support the right of people to be rude or nasty in public as a subset of my support for free speech and freedom of expression. Those rights are more restricted in a professional context however, and they do not allow someone to use their prejudices to eliminate an otherwise qualified candidate for/from employment. Fair treatment applies to things like education, service in open resturants, employment practices, and other professional situations/services. If you were lamenting your lack of being treated civily in public then I sympathize, if you were suggesting action be taken to remedy it, then I disagree.
Enjoy,
Steven
Poly wrote:
When they have initiated force or fraud.
MrVisible wrote:
Good question.
Suppose the worker pool at XYZ, Inc. is 100 people. How do you require that they hire at least one gay person without exercizing a prejudice against at least one straight person? Or vice-versa?
And yet, you’re doing exactly that. As I showed above, you aren’t dealing actually with the rights of individuals, but rather with the “rights” of groups. In doing so, you establish a utopian condition for someone in one group while establishing a distopian condition for someone in another group.
KellyM wrote:
Can you connect your two independent clauses by some sort of reasoning?
I’ll agree that “too many” do, as any more than zero would be “too many”. But “far too many”? I suppose that depends on your definition, but I’d like to see some numbers, myself.
Many businesses likely oppose the changes in laws not so they can freely go around discriminating willy nilly, but so they don’t have to worry about getting sued every time they hire or fire someone. Apple Computers, in particular, has a ridiculous paper trail attached to every employee, in part so that firing people can be done without fear of litigation.
Umm… huh? I thought he was fighting to divorce the HSD from the labor unions, specifically because labor unions make it more difficult to hire and fire based solely on merit. You’re telling me that the government is actively seeking to make sure that employees are incompetent? Do you have an iota of evidence to back that up?
Jeff
—Again, I had to work.—
I guess this is one area of difference between us that makes a big difference on this issue. I don’t hold that your need to work creates any sort of extra obligation for current employers to hire you. Or, if it does, then employers are at least no MORE obligated to hire you than a fellow worker is to form a bussiness and hire you.
—I’d say that issue has already been decided; the presence of anti-discrimination legislation speaks volumes.—
Since the legislation in many places does not include all sorts of potential groups to begin with, it speaks volumes about how screwed up it is in its conception. The law, according to you, is inconsistent: it does not give equal protection to everyone that might be discriminated against.
Well, the reason for this is that the laws came about as the result of individual interest groups pushing for special powers over employers for their group, and their group only, as opposed to having any sort of consistent moral stance based in general language.
—Obviously not, since when they had the right to do so they abused it egregiously, to the great harm of society.—
What do you mean, precisely, by “harm of society.” What harms caused to what people, in what ways? Is the society of yesterday the same as that of today?
Keep in mind, there are plenty of more effective ways to fight certain evils that we would not countenance. Right here on these very boards we have people dead set against the idea of giving up any protection of privacy from the government in exchange for increased security.
—Apos, it can be difficult for the general public to know if a company discriminates and, if so, how to take action.—
I don’t disagree with that… but so? That still doesn’t make it a legitimate ground for government intervention, because the problem is civil, not governmental. The government can’t discriminate in its hiring, private citizens can. When private citizens like you and I care about discrimination, then perhaps we should put more energy into finding out who holds opinions contrary to ours, and cease supporting them/speak out against them. If it’s hard, then it’s still OUR hard task to take on.
You don’t. But you do make sure that there is recourse available to the qualified gay person who gets fired, if being gay is what cost them their job. Just like in the OP.
What’s being discussed here is a simple addition to existing legislation that’s already proven to be efficacious in preventing discrimination against minorities. If you want to change the way the whole country works, well, good. Isn’t that a separate topic, though?
Libertarian, I fear I do not understand your request, and suggest that you have misunderstood what I said.
As for the first part, my girlfriend wants to be a lawyer. Unfortunately, she has been told many times that it will be extremely difficult for her to do so, since she will recieve discrimination from judges, other lawyers, clients and juries. She knows that she is limited in her career options just because of the way she naturally is at birth. I have another ts friend who is looking for a job right now and running into the same obsticles.
And as for the second part, i should have clarified. I ment it more, “if I can’t even be treated civily while simply walking down the street, I don’t expect to be treated civily at my work place.”
My girlfriend and I are debating trying out an experiment… her showing up to my work in a dress and make up. We are thinking of trying this before we move back to LA. The only problem is, I don’t want it showing up on my record that I have been fired, because I have a good work record before this.
ava, there are companies that do not discriminate against transsexuals. My current employer has not done anything negative toward me, and when someone tried to out me to management (for whatever reason), the attitude of our chief administrative officer was “Does she do her job well, or not? Then it’s of no concern of ours.”
Of course, I’m in the computer industry. But there are quite a few practicing transsexual lawyers, too.
Transexuals are yet another good reason why anti-discrimination laws, if done at all, should never have been done piecemeal. Here is a group, not necessarily having anything to do with homosexuality, that wont be protected even if homosexuals get protected, despite the fact that their transexuality rarely has any relevance to their performance.
That’s the problem of protecting groups instead of working from principles.
But, Apos, we can’t get people to agree not to discriminate at all. The businessdroids all whine and say that if they can’t feel free to discriminate they won’t be able to operate at all because they’ll be paralyzed by the possibility of someone else second-guessing their business decisions. (Whether or not this is true is a separate issue.)
And, to be honest, being transsexual often does negatively impact your performance and it definitely increases your medical expenses (which are often borne, at least in part, by the company). The reason why employers should, nonetheless, not discriminate against transsexuals (or any of a large number of other such things) is out of recognition that respect for human dignity should outweigh the quest for profit.
So, Apos, can you suggest a better way to implement protection from discrimination across the board, without protecting on the basis of individual characteristics such as race or sexual orientation? If so, can you outline a plan to implement that in a reasonable time frame? With limited funds?
If not, then adding to existing anti-discrimination legislation is the more reasonable approach, and the one I’ll be devoting my efforts to.