Maine joins civilization

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

I notice that you are continuing with the insults.

Lets throw out a bit of a hypothetical here. Lets say a qualified individual applies for a job at my company and I refuse becuase he is a homosexual. He then sues me and I have to pay a boatload of money. Now I go to hire someone for another position and find out that the person while qualified is a homosexual. I do not wish to hire that person. I can not afford another fine so I AM FORCED to hire a homosexual when I do not wish to.

A number of people look at this situation and are of the opinion that it is wrong for the government to step into this situation. A significant number of those people probably also feel that the business should not descriminate against homosexuals. However for some odd reason you feel the need to insult these people by calling them uncivilized, bigotted and from the stone age. It is wrong to do so and you should stop.

And your certain question will remain unanswered. I did not come in here to debate the merit of these laws rather to politely request that you stop insulting people that don’t deserve it. You ought to be careful in assuming anything about my opinion on the matter as it most likely will be erroneous. I however have no inclination of explaining myself to you on this issue as I feel if I disagree on any point from you you will label me a bigot and uncivilized. In fact you already have begun insulting me by calling me a liar and implying that I am slow.

You certainly are a class act.

22

Why would you do that? How is someone’s sexual orientation in any way relevant to the job for which you are looking for candidates? Unless you’re the editor in chief of Maxim and are looking to fill the position of Chief Boobie Evaluator, a person’s being gay should have absolutely no relevance to his qualifications for the job. No more than his being black, white, Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever.

And again, if he’s qualified for the job, why does it make one single bit of difference whether he’s homosexual or not, unless you (still hypothetically, of course; I’d hate to be insulting) are a bigot?

You don’t care to debate the position, but you keep saying that there’s nothing wrong with discrimination in hiring practices and that anyone who says otherwise is being “rude” for calling you a bigot? I’m not clear on how that works, exactly.

It sounds as if you’re confusing equal rights with special rights. And it sounds that you’re more concerned about protecting the rights of those who wish to engage in unfair hiring practices, than you are about protecting the rights of qualified people for jobs who are being unfairly discriminated against.

I can understand how affirmitive action would be a contentious issue, but to the best of my knowledge, that is not what is being proposed by the original legislation. It’s not requiring that every company be like the cast of “The Real World” with at least 1 black person, 1 Asian person, 1 homosexual, 1 Native American, and an equal ratio of men to women. It’s requiring that if you make positions at your company available to the public, you have to have valid reasons why you wouldn’t hire a certain person – competence, not irrelevant personal details.

Unless you’re willing to explain how sexual orientation, race, or gender affect an applicant’s capability to perform a job, then it’s impossible to have any sympathy for you.

23

** SolGrundy ** let me quote myself:

I did not come in here saying that it was ok for someone to discriminate against homosexuals in fact I said:

My point is:

Please note that I have not expressed an opinion on the merit of these laws and I do not have any intention to do so. All I have expressed is that the opinion that government should not intervene in the hiring practices is a legitimate one to hold. Otto in these threads has insulted EVERYONE that opposes these laws and slapped the label of bigot or in this case uncivilized on them. This is wrong and he should no longer do it.

Let me repeat myself. I am not saying the opinion that government should not intervene in business hiring workers is right, wrong or neutral. I am saying that it is a valid opinion to hold. The people that do hold this opinion do not necessarily do so out of bigotry nor are they any less civilized. Otto is slapping an incorrect label of uncivilized on these people and I made a polite request for him to stop.

To sum it up some of the people that oppose these laws do not do so out of bigotry rather a differing opinion on the role of government, insulting these people by calling them bigots is not right and Otto should stop doing so.

24

Treis, do you feel the same way about laws prohibiting discrimination against blacks, for example? Is government overstepping its bounds in that case as well? Why / why not?

25

No, there is not.

But if a homosexual is prevented from earning a living, they don’t particularly care. Sure, he might have lost his job and his home, but hey, that’s not nearly as important as an abstract philosophical principle.

“Needless and wrong” only in your opinion. Clearly, we have diffent ideas about what sort of opinions are acceptable in a modern, pluralistic society. I think that the lack of these sorts of protections creates an intolerable and dangerous climate for people who belong to minorities, and the repeal or prevention of implementation of these laws causes real, measurable, often physical harm to members of said minorities. Opposing them is intolerable to me, and I have little respect for people who do so, no matter what their motives for doing so. It is not a reasonable, respectable, valid, or civilized opinion.

Now may we please get back to our celebration of managing to eke another small measure of equality in this country, or do you want to further derail the thread with your asinine hijack?

26

And please understand that I’m asking for an explanation of exactly how this is a legitimate opinion to hold? I don’t see how it’s wrong to say that EVERYONE who is bigoted is bigoted. And I don’t see how Otto is doing anything wrong (in this case) by saying that unfair hiring practices are unfair.

Are we supposed to stop saying that discrimination is wrong just because there are “some people” out there who are insulted at being told they’re discriminatory and yet they won’t explain why they’re justified in being discriminatory? Again, I can’t read this as anything other than “You’ve offended some people, not me though, and I won’t tell you exactly how it’s offensive, but it is, so stop it.”

Which I read as “Being a libertarian does not automatically make one a bigot.” And I’m sure you’ll correct me if that’s an incorrect paraphrasing. And even though I personally give absolutely no merit whatsoever to libertarianism as anything other than something for philosophy majors and conspiracy freaks to get together and say “wouldn’t it be nice if…”, I’d agree with you. Being a libertarian doesn’t make one a bigot. It makes one hopelessly naive and completely out of touch with the way the world really works, but not a bigot.

But this law doesn’t hurt libertarians in any way except offending their sensibilities. Which, with libertarians, is unavoidable. This law hurts bigots, people who use irrelevant personal details instead of actual qualification as a basis for hiring employees. And that practice is indefensible.

27

And they, like you, are free to attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment. Otherwise you and your fellows who believe that bigots should be allowed to refuse to hire people for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job can suck it up and figure out that you live in a civilized society where the stone age bullshit you espouse has no place.

Bigotry is uncivilized. To go a step further, bigotry is evil. If you choose to defend bigotry, that’s between you and your conscience. I will continue to call bigotry bigotry, and I will continue to call bigots stupid, bigoted and of the stone age. Don’t like being called a bigot? Examine and release your bigotry.

Yeah, I kinda figured you wouldn’t answer. Once you admit that bigotry on the basis of irrelevant characteristics like race or sex is wrong, it gets that much harder to justify bigotry on the basis of sexual orientation.

Bigots deserve insults.

Calling a liar a liar is no insult. You’re a liar. No insult, just fact. As for your being slow, well, you’re the one who clings to falsehood.

Gee, coming from a bigot, that really hurts.

28

Any person who gives a reason for not hiring a person for a job is, IMO, stupid.
You just hire who you want to do the job you want.

If you are a government entity or a giant corporation and a direct trend or pattern can be established in it’s hiring practice, then they should be nailed to the cross for it. :wink:

But any small business that gives a reason to an applicant just because they ask for one is stupid, IMO, and deserves what the law hands down.

The government does not tell a business who they must hire unless they make a case on the national population averages. Then they still can’t go out and chose the applicants. Most individual companies are not of that order.

*Just hire who you want and keep your mouth shut. You can hire only all xxxxxxxxx minority that are gay and left handed. No problem. Just don’t say why you do or don’t hire a person. ::: sheesh ::::