Republicans and Religion

[Kimstu]

jmullaney: Well, the most obvious answer [to my question “Why do there need to be laws on the books banning discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc., but not banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation?”] is, in general you can tell whether someone is a man or a woman, orthodox jew or hindu, black or hispanic or white.

What!? People “in general” get discriminated against on the basis of religion because they look different?!? Honestly, jmullaney, that’s got to be one of the dumbest arguments I ever heard. Atheists, Catholics, fundamentalist Christians, non-Orthodox Jews—all these people can be and have been discriminated against because of their beliefs even if they don’t offer a single visual clue to their “differentness”. Why should their rights explicitly be protected by law and those of homosexuals shouldn’t?

You can’t look at someone and know they are gay. So how exactly are gays being discriminated against?

You can’t look at someone and necessarily know their religion or national origin, either, but employees are protected on those grounds. Take a look at this ACLU website for many examples of how gays are discriminated against.

Doesn’t the average homosexual make twice what the average heterosexual does?

Only in the homophobic fantasy world whose propaganda you seem to have swallowed whole. There are some statistics floating around that compare the incomes of a skewed sample of homosexuals (who tended to be more highly educated and more affluent) to the heterosexual population as a whole. But studies that look at more comparable samples find exactly the reverse: homosexuals on average make less money than heterosexuals. See this report for the details. Employment discrimination against homosexuals does have serious consequences for them, and that’s what they’re “bitching about.”

Homosexuality is a behavior and is already inherently protected under existing law.

In many cases, no. In states that have no laws banning antigay discrimination, employers can legally have policies excluding homosexuals. So homosexuals are not protected against such discrimination. Another case from the above website:

Daniel Miller, an accountant from Pennsylvania, was fired when his employer of more than five years evoked a clause in his job contract that barred gays from the company. Unable to file suit because Pennsylvania does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, Daniel established his own accounting firm. [Then his ex-employer sued him because his former clients switched to his new firm.]

Got that “unable to file suit” part? Homosexual employees are not necessarily protected against discrimination unless such discrimination is legally forbidden!

*So my question back to you is: why don’t homosexuals want to be treated just like everybody else? *

They do. That means, among other things, that they do not want to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation, which (although it seems difficult for you to grasp) not only happens very often but is frequently impossible to challenge legally.

*“Then why did Republicans in Congress in 1996 vote down the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have banned just such discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation?”

At the time, I heard it would have resulted in quotas. It would have resulted in companies with government business having to keep track of which of their employees were gay or lesbian and which weren’t. It would have resulted in businesses owned by homosexuals to get special treatment towards getting government contracts. *

Then shame on you for believing such lies from the homophobic fantasy world and making no effort to discover the actual facts. Take a look at the text of the Act and note in particular Section 8, where it specifically prohibits establishment of quotas or preferential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation!

Sorry to say it, jmullaney, but once again I have to agree with the assessment of “trolling” as applied to you by another poster. Your views on antigay discrimination appear to be strictly confined to the distorted homophobic fantasy world of certain conservative agendas, in which everything is really just peachy-dandy for homosexuals (with the grudging concession that there may be a few homophobic bigots here and there), and all their efforts to seek legal equality are just whiny demands for special treatment. You inhabit a shell of ignorance on this subject which you have absolutely no interest in growing out of, as evinced by your attempts to evade and distort the facts with foolish and unsupported analogies. You can go right on believing what you believe, and I’m sorry I ever wasted my time trying to provide you with information to the contrary. If it were not for the fact that I’ve never yet been reprimanded by a moderator and don’t want to break my record, I’d phrase my farewell more strongly, but as it is: Goodbye.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Atheists, Catholics, fundamentalist Christians, non-Orthodox Jews—all these people can be and have been discriminated against because of their beliefs even if they don’t offer a single visual clue to their “differentness”.

I believe you, but how is that possible?

many examples of how gays are discriminated against.

Fine. You want a law. Fine, you win. But I do want a law that protects religious freedom. ENDA doesn’t do that as best I can tell. For example:

This Act Shall
apply to employment and anemployment opportunity for an employment position of
a covered entity that is a religious organization, If the duties of the position
pertain solely to activities of the organization that generate unrelated business
taxable income subject to taxation under section 511(a) of the internal revenue
code of 1986

I would prefer, for the sake of religious freedom, that the yahoos can do whatever they want in hiring, regardless of the fact I have no idea what the above text means.

Only in the homophobic fantasy world whose propaganda you seem to have swallowed whole.

Well, OK. I usually trust the Wall Street Journal, among other spewers of false info mentioned by your cite, to give me the straight dope on mundane matters. If you insist they are under the control of ardent homophobes, OK. I sincerely apologize. I did not know that.

But studies that look at more comparable samples find exactly the reverse: homosexuals on average make less money than heterosexuals. See this report for the details.

Yeah, well, no offense, but the statistics this site gives are pretty well cooked too.

So homosexuals are not protected against such discrimination… which (although it seems difficult for you to grasp) not only happens very often but is frequently impossible to challenge legally.

OK, not that it ever is easy to challenge workplace discrimination in a court of law. You’ve basically won me over to your side though.

note in particular Section 8, where it specifically prohibits establishment of quotas or preferential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation!

Excellent. I didn’t know that either. Sorry for my confusion.

Sorry to say it, jmullaney, but once again I have to agree with the assessment of “trolling” as applied to you by another poster.

I would like to remind you that troll-hunting is against the policy of this board. If you think someone is a troll, you should e-mail the mods. Disagreeing with you because I don’t have access to all the facts you have access to isnt’ trolling IMHO.

Your views on antigay discrimination appear to be strictly confined to the distorted homophobic fantasy world of certain conservative agendas

I have no problem with believing everything I read until it is proven otherwise false. I have a trusting nature.

You inhabit a shell of ignorance on this subject which you have absolutely no interest in growing out of

Now, you are just being mean. Learn to quit while you are ahead.

I’m sorry I ever wasted my time trying to provide you with information to the contrary.

Yeah, but it worked. You’ve brought me to your point of view. Not that it matters since all my reps (including Senator Kennedy, one of the most ardent supporters of ENDA) are Democrats. And I’m still concerned about this bill curtailing religious freedoms – but I would promote it in a slightly modified form. OK? Feel better?

[Kimstu]

jmullaney: Now, you are just being mean.

You’re right. Lost my temper. I apologize. Thank you for being interested in straightening these issues out.

As for the religious exemption in ENDA, I don’t think you would have had to worry. Section 9(a) is pretty clear about ENDA not applying to religious organizations except for the particular case of section 9(b) covering activities that generate unrelated business taxable income. That certainly leaves out all the activities pertaining to religion, which are not taxable: so for example, no church need hire a gay receptionist. But if a religious organization engages in a for-profit venture which does generate taxable income—say, a local church sets up a Paul-Newman-style boutique factory to produce and market Pastor Martin’s Simply Divine Lemonade, or something—the for-profit venture is covered by the NDA provisions. The purpose of this, I think, is twofold: to avoid placing an unequal antidiscrimination burden on for-profit enterprises depending on who runs them, and to avoid letting antigay secular employers do an end-run around the law by placing themselves under the nominal direction of a church. But when engaging in not-for-profit activities, a religious organization under ENDA can still discriminate against gays all it wants to.

Without asserting that the Wall Street Journal is under the control of rabid homophobes, :rolleyes: I do regard dismissive “homosexuals-are-just-looking-for-special-rights” arguments as a form of homophobic propaganda, and it does irritate me beyond the point of courtesy sometimes. So though I withdraw my more intemperate remarks and apologize for them, I’m going to continue to let the rest of this discussion rest here.

[jmullaney]

No harm done.

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
avoid letting antigay secular employers do an end-run around the law by placing themselves under the nominal direction of a church. But when engaging in not-for-profit activities, a religious organization under ENDA can still discriminate against gays all it wants to.

Hmmm… well, that does sound reasonable.

Sorry again for taking too serious some of the propaganda – the issue hasn’t been one I’ve cared enough about to investigate very far.

I guess the Log Cabin Republicans do support ENDA after all, but still find Democrats to be pandering in some respects. An interview of both a gay Republican and a gay Democrat provides more insight. I’ll continue my learning process. Thanks, Kimstu.

[Monocracy]

*Originally posted by Maeglin *
**Perhaps you can explain Republican resistance to gun control then.

:wally: **

Gun control does not belong to a liberal or conservative philosophy. It just so happens that many people in America who are Republicans are also opposed to gun control … there is no cause and effect relationship. In most 2nd amendment discussions, you will see that opinions do not follow party lines as closely as a clear liberal/conservative topic.

[Maeglin]

Gun control does not belong to a liberal or conservative philosophy

I trust you have a citation to support this claim?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Monocracy *
It just so happens that many people in America who are Republicans are also opposed to gun control

Well, duh.

Finding a conservative who’s against gun control is easy (“Paging Mr. Heston…”). Finding a conservative who’s in favor of gun control, that’s another tack.

[Necros]

Well, Maeglin, libertarians, who are overwhelmingly socially liberal, are opposed to gun control. Is that good enough for you?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Necros *
libertarians… are overwhelmingly socially liberal

Yeah, but libertarians are overwhelmingly constitutional conservatives. Maybe you guys are talking at cross purposes.

[Maeglin]

Necros, it’s not good enough for me. jmullaney just told you why. And for once, I agree with him completely.

[Necros]

OK, then, Maeglin and (!) jmullany, I’m a little confused. Because what started the sniping attack against Monocracy was this in the OP:

Republicans always cry foul whenever they feel the government is trying to interfere with people’s lives.

to which he (?) replied:

If you replaced the word Republicans with the word Democrats, that sentence would make sense.

Maeglin then put opposition to gun control forward as evidence that GOPers act the way the OPer postulated.

I’m not seeing how you can have it both ways. Your idea is that Republicans, as constitutional conservatives, are only willing to adhere to the letter of the document. Thus, they quail at some of the expansive protections that constitutional liberals go for (see Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment battles, etc.). So, with their broader view of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, liberals should be the ones “cry[ing] foul whenever they feel the government is trying to interfere with people’s lives.”

So…did you agree or disagree with the OP? You’ve thoroughly confused me. Maybe my logic circuit is defective today…

[Maeglin]

So, with their broader view of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms,
liberals should be the ones “cry[ing] foul whenever they feel the government is trying to interfere with people’s lives.”

                     So...did you agree or disagree with the OP? You've thoroughly confused me. Maybe my logic circuit is defective today...

I don’t really understand the connection, Necros. But I will try to clarify my own opinion in the interest of coming to some conclusion.

Yes, many conservatives “cry foul” when they perceive that the government interferes with their lives. We have had many, many debates on gun control, ENDA, flag burning, school prayer, etc. In my experience, conservatives do not appreciate it when government passes certain measures that undermine their perceived freedoms: namely, firing a person based on sexual orientation, mandatory sectarian prayer in school, etc.

Monocracy argued that liberals are more likely to cry foul when the government steps in to regulate their lives. This is a dubious claim, to say the least. Expansive protection of constitutional freedoms requires more legislation, which in turn creates more governmental interference in the lives of ordinary individuals. As a social liberal, I can deal with this. Provided that my freedoms are protected in the way I believe they should be, I can suffer quite a bit of legislation.

So what point was Monocracy actually making?

With a broader interpretation of Constitutional freedoms, liberals are perhaps less likely to suffer government transgression of these freedoms.

But this in turn requires a heavy legislative load to protect these rights and punish those who do not respect them. Ergo, more government interference.

I supposeit cuts both ways.

MR

[Necros]

I think that Monocracy would very likely be befuddled by this:

Expansive protection of constitutional freedoms requires more legislation, which in turn creates more governmental interference in the lives of ordinary individuals.

The above is an idea that is foreign to most conservatives. I suspect you’d tell a bunch of them, and nine out of ten would hang their jaws open at you. It seems antithetical: Make more laws to prevent infringing on personal rights. Intellectually it may make sense, but in practice, I most surely do not see that the bulk of legislation passed protects rights; much more often, it seems, they infringe upon them.

Also, the ACLU, that bastion of personal freedom protection, is a liberal organization. Conservatives have nothing of the sort.

Seems to be a moot point regardless, though. Monocracy did a kind o’ hit and run, so we may never knows what he thought.

[Monocracy]

I am sorry for the “hit and run” posting, but i’m now here to clear up my views. Necros, i don’t think the issue is whether or not Maeglin agrees with the OP, but whether the first sentence of the OP makes sense.

Republicans always cry foul whenever they feel the government is trying to interfere with people’s lives.

Monocracy argued that liberals are more likely to cry foul when the government steps in to regulate their lives.

Actually, i would like to amend my statement. I took the OP to mean “interfere with people’s personal lives”. But, as it reads, the only word that would fit that sentence is Anarchists instead of Republicans (and instead of Democrats, which i originally claimed it should be). Both Republicans and Democrats don’t “always cry foul” when government interferes … Republicans like to interfere with people’s personal lives, Democrats like to interfere with the macro-economy and big business which will affect people’s lives.

So what point was Monocracy actually making?

The point i am making is that, contrary to the first sentence of the OP (which is the entire reason for this thread), Republicans sometimes support government that interferes with people’s lives. For example, Maeglin himself named 3 issues where conservatives want the government to interfere: support of the EDNA, anti-flag burning legislation, and mandatory school prayer.

Is there someone out there that believes that the OP makes sense?

[Maeglin]

s there someone out there that believes that the OP makes sense?

Yes, even if it isn’t always true. BTW, the Republican party does **not[/bp support ENDA. Why? Because the claim it is an unnecessary interference.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Necros *
the ACLU, that bastion of personal freedom protection, is a liberal organization. Conservatives have nothing of the sort.

I really don’t think that is a fair statement. There are plenty of Republicans who support the ACLU on a lot of issues. The ACLU has alienated a lot of Republicans because of their stance on abortion, which is why I can’t become a member. But, I’m on their mailing list and do often write my reps on issues they make me aware of even though I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life.