# Special rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2000, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662 "2000-10-12T13:59:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/141 "2000-10-18T17:49:00Z")
No esprix, it is not saying “they deserve what they get.” it is saying “like it or not, there are social mores.” You may not like them. You may have a sound and correct reason why they are wrong. But until we are all automotrons, people will punish you for violating them. If we are going to legislate equality for sexual orientation, then we must accept all forms of sexuality, including bestiality. If we are to go down the path of absolute logic in human interaction, then there are many, many other groups that need protection. Especially the fat and ugly. I think that it has been shown pretty conclusively that attractive people are treated better and hired more often. That is eqaully or perhaps more unjust than not hiring a gay. If I am but ugly and I get fired without a really, really good reason, I should be able to sue. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/142 "2000-10-18T17:50:51Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Mr.Zambezi** _ > > I don’t know if you guys are managers, but if you have been then you know that it is extremely important for your employees to “get along”. It makes a huge difference both in productivity, and job satasfaction. All issues of radce and sexual orientation aside, one wants people that can spend 40 hours a week togethr and still enjoy working together. I resent any attempt by the gov’t to dictate who I can hire. Perhaps if an employer were having “get along” problems it might behoove them to address the person with the problem, not the person whose mere presence causes the problem. “Not being a team player” is admittedly kind of amorphous, but it is a legitimate reason to dismiss someone, as long as it is done fairly across the board. Companies that have clear policies and paper trails and treat everyone exactly the same usually don’t have problems winning should they get sued. And yes, I’m not naive enough to think that no one’s going to sue anyway, no matter how warranted, but, as we tried to explain to **Wildest Bill** in other threads, sometimes that’s just the cost of doing business. Perhaps you and he could get together to talk about the woes of being an employer sometime? > [@](#): > > I know, special protections do not equate to quotas, right? Try explaining that on the stand when you fired the only hispanic or black or gay in your department. Plaintiff counsel will kill you. So, for protection, you need to hire a “representative” number of each group that reflects their percentage in the community… > > At the end of the day, the litmus test is “is the number of x representative of the community.” > > As long as that is so, special rights ARE quotas. I disagree - run a clean business, and they’re not. Try unethical end runs around the people one should treat equally, and you get called on it. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/143 "2000-10-18T17:54:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Scylla** _ > > I’m uncomfortable with the idea of “hate crimes” in general. > I don’t know if it’s correct to measure the heinoussnes of a crime by its motive. As has been argued again and again and again, motive has been deemed important time and time again by the courts and the USSC. This is why there’s a difference between involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter, murder I, murder II, etc. The additional issue is, for lack of a better term, “ethnic intimidation.” Terrorism is terrorism, no matter how thin you slice it. > [@](#): > > (BTW, Esprix, that was a shitty thing to say, IMHO) “If they’d just ‘be normal,’ why, there just wouldn’t be a problem, would there?” That was a shitty thing to say, IMHO. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/144 "2000-10-18T18:03:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Mr.Zambezi** _ > > But until we are all automotrons, people will punish you for violating them. So instead of punishing the _punishers_, for both their heinous actions and instilling a climate of fear in the workplace/community/wherever, we should inform the _punished_ that they should just act the way society dictates, and nobody gets hurt. Wait, let me wave my American flag - I think I’m going to cry, that’s so touching. God bless the USA! :rolleyes: Last time I checked, this country was built on diversity. The bottom line is that everyone has the freedom to live as they please without fear for doing so. The message the HCPA sends only reinforces this against the bigotry that does, indeed, exist in this country. > [@](#): > > If we are going to legislate equality for sexual orientation, then we must accept all forms of sexuality, including bestiality. Oh, yeah, _that_ makes you look intelligent. Consensual sex between two legal adults is a far cry from sex with animals or children. And, please, bring up the topic of incest, and make yourself look even more foolish. > [@](#): > > If we are to go down the path of absolute logic in human interaction, then there are many, many other groups that need protection. Especially the fat and ugly. I think that it has been shown pretty conclusively that attractive people are treated better and hired more often. That is eqaully or perhaps more unjust than not hiring a gay. If I am but ugly and I get fired without a really, really good reason, I should be able to sue. And you know what? People do. And you know what? People win those cases. Hire based on ability. Also, keep in mind that many of these laws do not apply to private organizations and businesses, such as churches and the like - they only affect public groups and businesses and accommodations. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/145 "2000-10-18T18:13:38Z")
> [@](#): > > The bottom line is that everyone has the freedom to live as they please without fear for doing so. The message the HCPA sends only reinforces this against the bigotry that does, indeed, exist in this country. nad here is exactly the crux of our differences. You, esprix, do not want people to be able to live as they please. Yuu want to create laws that make people behave the way **you** want them to. You are the one who wants to pass laws to force people to treat you the way you want. Esprix, I am not going to get in an argument with you over whether Gayness is Ok or not. I think you would find that our views are the same for the most part. But it is not the “norm” any more than wearing nose rings is the norm. Is it OK? yes. Should people be judged on this alone? NO. Are they? yes. SHould there be a law protecting me from being fired for wearing a nose ring? no. ODn’t forget that there are many other lifestyles that will cause one to be treated unfairly. I find it interesting that you only want to protect this one. Sigh, I guess if you guys keep passing laws I will be able to live in that Utopia I have always dreamed of and come into work naked, smoking a stogie. And please, enough with the insults. It doesn’t become you. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/146 "2000-10-18T18:16:57Z")
> [@](#): > > And you know what? People do. And you know what? People win those cases. Hire based on ability. I just caught this on the second read. So, you are saying that people who are not in a protected class have legal standing to file suit and actually win? If people with no special rights have grounds for suit and can prevail, then why do gays need special protection. If what you are saying is true, you already have recourse. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/147 "2000-10-18T18:17:41Z")
Esprix: The different types of murder do not directly address motivation (though they can.) They are HOW the murder was committed, not why. I see it as a key distinction. A strong message should be sent that anyone who engages in arbitrary crime based on racial, sexual and religious beleifs can expect the most serious of punishment. This should be determined on a case by case basis during sentencing to make sure that the punishment fits the crime, not rubberstamped. Federally mandating maximum sentences takes away from the ability of a judge to mete out justice fairly. That’s my opinion on Hate Crime legislation. I am against it. But, since it does exist now, I think it’s only right that it apply to all people as you have argued. Mr. Zambezi seems concerned that “hate crime” as well as other anti-discrimanatory legislation can be played as a card where it doesn’t apply. I see that as a valid concern. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*“If they’d just ‘be normal,’ why, there just wouldn’t be a problem, would there?” That was a shitty thing to say, IMHO. > Esprix \*\* No, but he is frustrated, and concerned. He should be your ally. Besides, YOU are better than that. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/148 "2000-10-18T18:20:47Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Polycarp** _ > > the Employment Non-Discrimination Act Controvertial, but I think it’s a good idea. I’d like to experience the freedom to go to a job somewhere and be reasonably assured I’d be judged on my job performance and qualifications. > [@](#): > > decriminalization of consensual adult sex acts For it. > [@](#): > > laws prohibiting discrimination in housing, loans, and other similar everyday transactions For 'em. > [@](#): > > Are these “special rights”? Even the phrasing to define them makes it evident to me that they are not. People would disagree, as **Mr.Zembezi** I’m sure would be one of them. He is right about one thing - it’s not that there isn’t a problem, it’s just that people differ on how best to solve them. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/149 "2000-10-18T18:26:16Z")
The “No,” at the end of my last post should be “No, that was not a good thing to say.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Zambezi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Mr.Zambezi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Zambezi)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/150 "2000-10-18T19:08:08Z")
Question: does anyone here really believe that anti discrimination laws are crafted to protect straights, whites, males and christians? On discrimination in general: Discrimination is a good thing. The word became pejoritive, I believe, in the last 60 years or so . If one can’t discriminate, then one doesn’t know good from bad, rotten from fresh or shit from shinola. Yes, I am against anti-discrimination in loans because they generally discriminate based on income and location of one’s home (for mortgages). Insurance does the same. It has to because your income and the location of your house effect the level of risk. This often appears to correlate with race. Certain races populate poor neighborhoods. You can’t say that a house in Watts is the same risk as one on Knob Hill. Laws such as this use the power of the federal government to force private business to provide artificially priced loans and insurance. And guess who makes up the difference. Honkys in the burbs like me. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/151 "2000-10-18T19:39:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi \* > \*\*Question: does anyone here really believe that anti discrimination laws are crafted to protect straights, whites, males and christians? \*\* They are intended to protect people who are being discriminated against. If you are not being discriminated against, this is a good thing, no? > [@](#): > > \*\* On discrimination in general: Discrimination is a good thing. The word became pejoritive, I believe, in the last 60 years or so . > > If one can’t discriminate, then one doesn’t know good from bad, rotten from fresh or shit from shinola. \*\* This is true. What we are arguing about is how it is applied to people. > [@](#): > > \*\* Laws such as this use the power of the federal government to force private business to provide artificially priced loans and insurance. And guess who makes up the difference. Honkys in the burbs like me. \*\* This is off topic, but WTH? I actually know an awful lot about the specific practices you are referring to. Frankly, the argument is wrong, pure and simple. You are a part of society. When you get health insurance through your company, you may be 50 years old, overweight, and had two heart attacks. The insurance company must accept you even though you are a bad risk. Everybody else pays higher premiums as a result. They do so, and the insurance company takes you because you are a part of the company. It is the right thing to do, and it is ultimately fair. It is for the good of the company to have you insured. It is to the benefit of the insurance company to accept you even though you are a bad risk in order to insure the “good risks” in the rest of the pool. The healthy young employees carry the weight, but one day they will have need of cheap insurance. It is in everyone’s best interest. You are a part of the company. You are a part of society. You receive benefits by being so. The same rules apply. Understand? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/152 "2000-10-18T19:45:09Z")
Mr. Zambezi, if you must stretch arguments you disagree with to snapping absurdity in order to object to them, consider the implications of your own argument. [ul]_Laws against rape are a government intrusion, and represent special protection for women at the expense of the freedom of men who choose live a rapist lifestyle. If women don’t want to be subject to the whims of rapists, they are free to alter their behavior–to dress in burlap and stay at home, for example–but shouldn’t expect the government to pass laws restricting the behavior others for women’s special protection._[/ul]Presumably you see the absurdity of this. What you don’t see is that the distinction you make between this hypothetical extrapolation and the issue at hand, that of including homosexuality under _existing_ anti-discrimination laws, is an arbitrary one; at least it’s a naïve and solipsistic distinction. You may say that in the “rapist lifestyle” scenario, the rapist commits real violence against the victim, while someone discriminating against a homosexual employee, for example, does not. One can only say this from the perspective of someone who has never had his life limited or his humanity challenged by another person, a person whose discriminatory practices are implicitly protected because not explicitly included with other proscribed discrimination. The violence against my life and my personhood are just as real. One could argue that an act of consensual sex is distinguished from an act of rape only by _intention_. The mechanics are the same; it’s only the _thoughts_ and _wills_ of the participants that make rape a crime. If you’re willing to make that distinction as a society (and obviously we are; I don’t see anyone questioning rape laws as legislating against “thought crimes”), then the _intent_ of harming an individual versus implicitly threatening every member of that individual’s group shouldn’t be that much of leap. And the _inclusion_ of a discriminated-against minority in anti-discrimination laws is not special treatment, nor is it an unfair imposition on the life or choices of the majority: the _exclusion_ of that minority from existing anti-discrimination laws is special treatment for the discriminators. The discriminatory behavior–not the thoughts–of homophobes is singled out for government protection, while that of racists and misogynists, for example, is not. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/153 "2000-10-18T19:45:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by **MGibson** _ > > > > What evidence is there to suggest that all people aren’t being protected under the law? > > Brandon Teena would be alive today if he had been protected under the law. There’s one. > > Esprix \*\* She was protected under the law. The fact that some jerk of a sheriff was more interested in her transgender status then the rape charge doesn’t change that. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/154 "2000-10-18T19:55:59Z")
Something just caught my eye from [http://www.planetout.com](http://www.planetout.com) in reference to something that happened during the second presidential debate: > [@](#): > > Bush had appeared to smirk as he explained that in the case of the murder of James Byrd, Jr. – the African-American man who was dragged to death behind a truck by white supremacists – hate crimes legislation was not necessary because Byrd’s killers were sentenced to death without such a law. I found this interesting. For those who are more familiar with the HCPA than I, is this true? Is federal intervention once a crime is identified as a hate crime not necessary if the maximum sentence is imposed? Or am I misreading what’s being said here? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/155 "2000-10-18T19:58:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi \* > \*\*Question: does anyone here really believe that anti discrimination laws are crafted to protect straights, whites, males and christians? . . . \*\* Question: does anyone here really believe that Kevlar vests provide equal protection to the shooter and the victim? Wake the phoque up, Mr.Z, or move to a damn island. You live in a society. If your behavior negatively affects other members of that society, they have a collective right to determine a way to manage that behavior. Behavior that does not affect someone else’s rights and needs are (ideally) not so managed. You have the same general expectations of your “neighbors” as they have of you, and you are a member of the group that participates, representatively, in the decisions governing the validity and balances of those relationships. An erosion of the cultural accident of Straight-White-Male privilege is not an intrusion upon your rights: it’s an evolution toward a more balanced society, from which _all_ of us will, presumably, benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/156 "2000-10-18T20:06:39Z")
Esprix: I think you might be misreading it. Deliberately dragging somebody behind a truck until they are dead, is about as bad as you can get. I don’t care why they did it. It is so bad that there is nothing that could mitigate it. It is so bad that there is nothing that could make it worse. It is not merely a hate crime against black people. That would reduce its monstrosity. It is a crime against everyone who lives and breathes. They should fucking die for it. So, no, categorizing it as a hate crime is not really necessary. Though if it means they can suffer more… ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/157 "2000-10-18T20:13:16Z")
…and. I interpreted Bush’s reaction to mean that justice was meted out fairly and quickly without any Federal Hate Crimes Commision help, thank you very much. When something like this happens, it is almost an insult to the state to say we need special Federal teams to handle this. There was general and sincere outrage over this occurence in Texas, and part of the healing process is that they be allowed to solve it themselves, without a task force. That’s how I see it. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/158 "2000-10-18T20:21:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by DavisMcDavis \* > \*\* > This is typical of heterosexuals - behavior that they take for granted - for example, wearing a wedding ring, kissing their significant other in public, placing a photo of one’s opposite-sex husband or wife on their desk at work, speaking about their home life to others - all of these things are seen as normal, but when it’s a gay person, all of a sudden we’re “announcing” to everyone “what we do in bed.” It’s just so annoying._\* Indeed. The right that heterosexuals enjoy to do these things without harassment is a “special right” enjoyed only by heterosexuals. This is really what “special rights” nonsense is all about: protecting heterosexual special rights. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/159 "2000-10-18T20:21:12Z")
You’re right - I did misread it. Bush was saying the existing hate crimes law was redundant because they received the maximum penalty. Tell me, though - how do you think every black person in Jaspar, TX felt after this incident? Terrified - I’m sure I would be in their shoes. But I doubt there were any white supremecists fearing for their lives from their fellow bigots. In fact, I doubt any white person felt any fear from anyone in the _black_ community, outraged as they were. So if they _hadn’t_ received the maximum penalty, shouldn’t consideration be made for the hostile atmosphere of fear they created against an entire segment of the town of Jaspar, TX? Last time I checked, terrorism is a crime, isn’t it? Or are we allowing the government to unfairly legislate an individual’s freedom of choice? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2000, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662/160 "2000-10-18T20:34:19Z")
Mr. Zambezi: It is obvious that some anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs are counterproductive. They may produce reverse discrimination, or perpetuate what they are tring to solve. Surely the discrimination card can be played disingenuously. Does this piss off somebody that never hurt anybody? It surely must. Will it cause someone to actually become prejudiced who wasn’t before? That depends on the character of the person in question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/special-rights/36662.md?page=9)