Maine has joined the rest of New England and several other states in extending basic civil rights protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Maine has surpassed several of those states by including gender identity in its protections.
Of course the radical right’s collective mouth is foaming at this. They insist that these basic protections against being fired or evicted for being gay are the first step down the road to Hell, Hell being defined as same-sex marriage. To address their lunatic concerns, the law includes specific language that it does not apply to equality in marriage.
Isn’t this type of discrimination already illegal? If someone was refused employment, housing, etc. because of their sexual orientation before this Act, couldn’t they win a law suit?
Don’t the politicans and citizens who brag about us being the ‘most free country on earth’ ever sit back and wonder how fighting to deprive homosexuals of the right to not be discrimiated against fits into that ideal?
Nope. There is no federal law banning sexual orientation discrimination (although an executive order does prohibit it regarding federal employees, except that the Bush appointee in charge of enforcing it has been busy like a beaver deleting references to it from his agency’s website, changing a long-standing interpretation of the order and altering language in federal contracts to allow such discrimination). On the state level I think the number of states including Maine is 19.
Possibly, but this act brings the power of the State to bear on such cases.
** Otto ** this isn’t the first thread you have started like this and I believe your title is unnecessary and wrong. Numerous people believe that companies should be able to hire whomever they like. Including not hiring people that do not conform to their moral code. They do not believe it is the business of the government to come into their business that they built from scratch and force them to hire someone. This does not make them bigots, uncivilized or that they live in the stone age (I believe that was one of your titles). Insulting them is wrong and is needlessly inflammatory. I politely request that you stop.
I might consider your polite request were it not for this lie:
Civil rights laws do not “force” companies to hire anyone. They simply state that there are certain irrelevant characteristics which employers are not allowed to consider in making hiring decisions. Bigotry against gay people, especially bigotry wrapped in the phony lie of “morality,” is uncivilized. If one is bigoted against gay people, let them have the balls to stand up and admit it instead of blaming it on “God.” I politely request that you stop lying about civil rights laws.
And surprise, I believe that companies should be allowed to hire whom they want, but I also believe that society benefits from disallowing them from refusing to hire people for reasons that are meaningless to the employee’s ability to do the job. If you don’t like it, start a grassroots campaign to repeal the 14th Amendment. Or do you really believe the country was better off when businesses posted signs that read “No Irish Need Apply”? When people of color were routinely denied gainful employment? When women were passed over for jobs because a man ‘needed it to support his family and the woman would just get married and quit anyway’?
As a (gay) libertarian, I agree with you in theory – except for your statement that they are not bigots or uncivilized. They are. And I would love nothing more than to see the free market put these uncivilized bigots out of business.
But the reality is that there are many other minorities that do have these protections, and the government has taken over a process that should be accomplished through other means, such as education and activism. So for the sake of fairness, if some minorities are protected, **all **minorities should be protected.
Nice a polite request to stop insulting people that do not deserve it is met with an accusation of lying. Very classy.
** panache45 **-
I was speaking of the people that oppose laws like these on the basis that government has no business intervening in situations like this. Certainly the business owners that refuse to hire homosexuals are bigots.
I do not wish to hire a person. The government tells me that I must hire that person under penalty of law. How is that not forcing me to hire that person?
The government is not telling you that you must hire anyone. The government is telling you that you may not consider certain irrelevant characteristics in making your hiring decisions. I will refrain from describing what your apparant inability to distinguish between these concepts tells us about your intellect out of respect for the forum.
Again, if you don’t like government having the power to tell you that you may not consider factors such as race, sex or sexual orientation in hiring, please feel free to begin your campaign to repeal the 14th Amendment.
You didn’t answer…do you want to return to the days of “No Irish Need Apply”?
I see so the business owner makes a decision that he does not want to hire a worker. The government then goes to the business owner and says your reason for not hiring this worker is invalid, hire this worker.
Regardless of what you think the opinion that it is not the governments role to intervene in the hiring practices of businesses is a valid one. The people that hold it are not necessarily bigots, uncivilized or living in the stone age. Continually insulting these people and implying that all those that oppose equal hiring laws are bigots is wrong and you should stop doing it.
I am not really interested in debating the wisdom of these laws, espicially with a person that can’t seem to refrain from insulting the opposition.
You’re right, it is possible to be opposed to these laws and not be a bigot. It’s still not very civilized. Abstract principles are all well and good, except when they’re being made on the backs of actual, living human beings. Someone who thinks that the principle of non-governmental interference is more important than allowing someone to feed his or her family and put a roof over their heads does not rate much higher than a participant at a cross-burning, in my book. A little higher, sure, but just a little.
That is a bit of a hyperbole there ** Miller **. As far as I know none of the people that oppose these laws favor preventing homosexuals from earning a living. They just do not feel that the government should force businesses to hire homosexuals if they do not wish to. Again as far as I know none of them favor denying homosexuals the safety net government provides through welfare, social security and medicare.
But again why must you insult the opposition putting them nearly at the level of the KKK? Can’t you respect the fact that people have different opinions than you do and cease these needless and wrong insults?
Let me explain this again for the particularly slow among us.
Civil rights laws do not force businesses to hire anyone. Civil rights laws say that employers may not consider certain irrelevant things in making their hiring decisions.
Anyone who says that civil rights laws force employers to hire people is either stupid, a liar or willfully choosing to be ignorant.
And I notice that a certain question of mine remains unanswered…
