Political Crossfire Forums

[Pimpkie_69]

On one hand, you have the massive numbers of right wingers trying to ban gay marriage, gay sex, stylish clothing, Village People music, and anything remotely gay. On the other hand, you have huge numbers of left wingers trying to DESTROY freedom of speech by imposing strict laws against "discrimination by sexual orientation" and crap like that. Both sides are wrong. Gays deserve equal rights, including marriage. But everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech. I don't agree with calling someone "fagg0t", hell, I think it's a horrible thing to say, but I will defend someone's right to say it without a doubt.

Myself, along with the Libertarian party, have a sensible solution; allow gays to marry, have gay sex, be gay, and don't have any discrimination against them on a governmental level. But, also, don't restrict freedom of speech with strict "anti-discrimination laws" or anything like that.

[JDnCoke]

Pimpkie_69 wrote: On one hand, you have the massive numbers of right wingers trying to ban gay marriage, gay sex, stylish clothing, Village People music, and anything remotely gay. On the other hand, you have huge numbers of left wingers trying to DESTROY freedom of speech by imposing strict laws against "discrimination by sexual orientation" and crap like that. Both sides are wrong. Gays deserve equal rights, including marriage. But everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech. I don't agree with calling someone "fagg0t", hell, I think it's a horrible thing to say, but I will defend someone's right to say it without a doubt.

Myself, along with the Libertarian party, have a sensible solution; allow gays to marry, have gay sex, be gay, and don't have any discrimination against them on a governmental level. But, also, don't restrict freedom of speech with strict "anti-discrimination laws" or anything like that.

:clap:

[F'losrix]

Pimpkie_69 wrote: On one hand, you have the massive numbers of right wingers trying to ban gay marriage, gay sex, stylish clothing, Village People music, and anything remotely gay. On the other hand, you have huge numbers of left wingers trying to DESTROY freedom of speech by imposing strict laws against "discrimination by sexual orientation" and crap like that. Both sides are wrong. Gays deserve equal rights, including marriage. But everyone deserves the right to freedom of speech. I don't agree with calling someone "fagg0t", hell, I think it's a horrible thing to say, but I will defend someone's right to say it without a doubt.

Myself, along with the Libertarian party, have a sensible solution; allow gays to marry, have gay sex, be gay, and don't have any discrimination against them on a governmental level. But, also, don't restrict freedom of speech with strict "anti-discrimination laws" or anything like that.
Exactly what are we talking about, here? Laws that offer protection from discrimination in employment, housing, etc? Or are you talking about people who want to criminalize 'hate speech?

Anti-discrimination laws that protect minorities in the areas of employment and housing are hardly curbs on free speech. You're asking us to interpret the act of firing someone simply for being a homosexual as a form of expression equivalent to actual speech. If it is, then is there any action which isn't a form of expression and therefore covered under the 1st Amendment?

As for criminalizing 'hate speech', I would agree that this is not a wise path for us to take and that it seems to fly in the face of the 1st Amendment's protections of free speech.

The libertarian solution asks us to posit that rolling back protections for minorities will create greater freedom for everyone. I assert that what it creates is greater freedom for those who already enjoy some form of power & control, and not for those subject to that power and control.

I don't want to spend my life in a 'gay ghetto' in some huge city. I just want the opportunity to support myself and maintain my home where I already live. That can be extremely difficult for a gay person to do in a small town even with anti-discrimination laws. Now you want to give employers etc. a free hand to take away our jobs and evict us from our homes as part of their freedom of speech????? At the same time effectively taking ours away by making us stay in the closet if we want to work and have a place to live.

This is not an issue of freedom of speech. What it is, is a perversion of the concept of freedom of association - which isn't explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, by the way. It's taking that idea a step further and saying that people should have the freedom to disassociate from whomever they please. You're basically encouraging people to form isolated conclaves in groups where everyone thinks alike, outsiders are completely unwelcome and anyone who fails to conform gets chased out of the village. Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.

How do you guarantee a minority's equal rights without some means to protect them from undue discrimination?

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote: Anti-discrimination laws that protect minorities in the areas of employment and housing are hardly curbs on free speech. You're asking us to interpret the act of firing someone simply for being a homosexual as a form of expression equivalent to actual speech. If it is, then is there any action which isn't a form of expression and therefore covered under the 1st Amendment?

NO ONE should tell a business OWNER (as in he owns the business) how to run his property. If there is discrimination, then the Free Market will take care of it. It doesn't fall under freedom of speech, but it DOES fall under property rights and freedom of contract. You do not have the right to a job.

[Enoch]

Well said Pimpkie.

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: If there is discrimination, then the Free Market will take care of it.
By 'take care of it' I have to assume you mean by encouraging further discrimination, since that's what history informs us will happen.

Quote: It doesn't fall under freedom of speech, but it DOES fall under property rights and freedom of contract. You do not have the right to a job.
So if a person is gay, too f*ing bad. You think it's perfectly fine that the discrimination bred by Free Market forces will mean gay people will have to stay in the closet or live marginalized lives in the gay ghettos of urban areas.

A free market isn't the solution to everything. Oh, but you don't think discrimination IS a problem, do you?

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: If there is discrimination, then the Free Market will take care of it.
By 'take care of it' I have to assume you mean by encouraging further discrimination, since that's what history informs us will happen.

Quote: It doesn't fall under freedom of speech, but it DOES fall under property rights and freedom of contract. You do not have the right to a job.
So if a person is gay, too f*ing bad. You think it's perfectly fine that the discrimination bred by Free Market forces will mean gay people will have to stay in the closet or live marginalized lives in the gay ghettos of urban areas.

A free market isn't the solution to everything. Oh, but you don't think discrimination IS a problem, do you?


Well, skeptical, that is taking it a bit far. While I am certainly not one for the idea that people should be fired for being gay, black, female, Islamic, or a vegitarian; I wonder how much we should allow the government to force employers in to keeping employees they are not comfortable with due to the fact that they are in a minority.

I am gay, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable being kept on a job simply because the boss isn't ALLOWED to fire me. I would want to work somewhere where I knew that I would be comfortable and accepted.

DS is right that a job is NOT a right. That is why I like Indiana's employment laws. Indiana is an "at will" state. I can leave whenever I want, and I can be fired whenever they want....and the law doesn't care. And, yet, despite this fact, homosexual Hoosiers have NOT fallen in to the "gay ghetto" you describe.

If a business wants to create internal protocols for hiring and firing, that is their business. It is NOT the business of the state to make sure that every gets a job and keeps a job.

[F'losrix]

UrielsFyre wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: If there is discrimination, then the Free Market will take care of it.
By 'take care of it' I have to assume you mean by encouraging further discrimination, since that's what history informs us will happen.

Quote: It doesn't fall under freedom of speech, but it DOES fall under property rights and freedom of contract. You do not have the right to a job.
So if a person is gay, too f*ing bad. You think it's perfectly fine that the discrimination bred by Free Market forces will mean gay people will have to stay in the closet or live marginalized lives in the gay ghettos of urban areas.

A free market isn't the solution to everything. Oh, but you don't think discrimination IS a problem, do you?


Well, skeptical, that is taking it a bit far. While I am certainly not one for the idea that people should be fired for being gay, black, female, Islamic, or a vegitarian; I wonder how much we should allow the government to force employers in to keeping employees they are not comfortable with due to the fact that they are in a minority.

I am gay, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable being kept on a job simply because the boss isn't ALLOWED to fire me. I would want to work somewhere where I knew that I would be comfortable and accepted.
Good luck finding such a place if you live in much of America that isn't urban. I left my hometown and knowing how they still treat gay people there, I would never go back. Nor would I consider going back to Grand Rapids, and it's hardly rural, but still heavily dominated by the Christian Reformed Church.

Quote: DS is right that a job is NOT a right.
You don't believe that a person has a right to support themselves by working? Take away anti-discrimination laws and you might as well be telling people that what they have is a right to starve to death.

Quote: That is why I like Indiana's employment laws. Indiana is an "at will" state.
So is Michigan and it s*cks.

Quote: I can leave whenever I want, and I can be fired whenever they want....and the law doesn't care. And, yet, despite this fact, homosexual Hoosiers have NOT fallen in to the "gay ghetto" you describe.
You might be surprised how many of them actually have, leaving for places like Chicago, San Francisco, New York. Of those who have remained, a fair number are likely closeted.

Quote: If a business wants to create internal protocols for hiring and firing, that is their business. It is NOT the business of the state to make sure that every gets a job and keeps a job.
It is the business of the State to ensure fair labor practices.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
You don't believe that a person has a right to support themselves by working? Take away anti-discrimination laws and you might as well be telling people that what they have is a right to starve to death.

Firstly, you said that "History has shown us that..."

All examples in history of minorities being persecuted occur when the GOVERNMENT participates in the discrimination. I challenge you to find one incident in history when the persecution of one group was done solely by citizens



Quote: You don't believe that a person has a right to support themselves by working? Take away anti-discrimination laws and you might as well be telling people that what they have is a right to starve to death.



What you're saying is htat noone in your town believes that you should be able to get a job? If a job fires you for being gay then I suggest you write the newspapers. You will not find a town in the country that would not be outraged at that discrimination. THey will, in all circumstances, loose from nearly all to at least a good chunk of their business. As such, the business must then change their policy or loose business. If that somehow fails, then you can start your own business. The Free Market solves almost all problems.



Quote: So is Michigan and it s*cks.

PrinceJunius said he lived Michigan, and that they were very tolerant of gays...

Quote: You might be surprised how many of them actually have, leaving for places like Chicago, San Francisco, New York. Of those who have remained, a fair number are likely closeted.

Okay Skeptical. Lets say a company has a whole lot of black employees. Now, say someone applys for the job, who hapepns to have an outspoken belief that all blacks should be hung, and has a history of violence against them. Should the company be FORCED to hire him, since he has the right to a job?


Quote: It is the business of the State to ensure fair labor practices Firstly, I challenge you to find one part of the Consitution that supports "fair trade".

Secondly, how is it fair that the business owner is being forced to run their business a certain way? It's no longer THEIR business if the State tells them how to run it.

[Nelson]

So, you also support companies being able to pay women less than men? How about a removal of minimum wage, elimination of health standards in the workplace, removal of benefits - because businesses shouldn't have to do what the state tells them to do?

Are we looking -forward- to a society that has industrial-revolution-esque children working in factories?

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
You don't believe that a person has a right to support themselves by working? Take away anti-discrimination laws and you might as well be telling people that what they have is a right to starve to death.

Firstly, you said that "History has shown us that..."

All examples in history of minorities being persecuted occur when the GOVERNMENT participates in the discrimination.
And likewise, they rarely cease without the government's participation.

Quote: I challenge you to find one incident in history when the persecution of one group was done solely by citizens
Red herring - I never said anything about 'solely by citizens'.

Quote: What you're saying is htat noone in your town believes that you should be able to get a job? If a job fires you for being gay then I suggest you write the newspapers. You will not find a town in the country that would not be outraged at that discrimination.
What planet do you live on? Apparently you missed that story about the town council in Tennessee (or was it Kentucky?), where they voted to pass an ordinance banning homosexuals. No joke.

Quote: THey will, in all circumstances, loose from nearly all to at least a good chunk of their business. As such, the business must then change their policy or loose business.
Also not true. They'll actually gain some business from people who will support them BECAUSE they have taken an anti-gay stance.

Quote: If that somehow fails, then you can start your own business. The Free Market solves almost all problems.
Right, like we all have spare capital sitting around to do that sort of thing and the business know-how to get a company up and running. If you have the misfortune to live in a place that is strongly anti-gay, good luck finding financial backers for a gay-owned business.

Quote: Quote: So is Michigan and it s*cks.

PrinceJunius said he lived Michigan, and that they were very tolerant of gays...
PrinceJunius is a 13-year old who lives near Ann Arbor - the state's most liberal city. He simply doesn't have the depth of experience that someone like me possesses at an age of 42 years old and having lived all over the state. I have publicly disagreed with his portrayal of Ann Arbor a number of times on this forum, as I happen to live nearby as well and actually work in Ann Arbor. And why did I end up here? You guessed it - because it's about the only place in the state where a gay person has a halfway decent chance at making a living without having to be fully closeted. Doesn't mean I haven't faced harassment even here.

Michigan is not tolerant of gay people. Just last year the state passed an anti-gay marriage amendment that also banned civil unions and recognition of domestic partnerships. Now its proponents are suing to force public employers to rescind the benefits they offer to domestic partners. There are no laws to protect gay people from unwarranted discrimination in Michigan.

Quote: Okay Skeptical. Lets say a company has a whole lot of black employees. Now, say someone applys for the job, who hapepns to have an outspoken belief that all blacks should be hung, and has a history of violence against them. Should the company be FORCED to hire him, since he has the right to a job?
What does that have to do with a company firing someone they suspect of being gay just because they're over 30, aren't married and don't engage in casual conversation with coworkers that portrays an obvious interest in the opposite sex?

You're talking about a company being forced to hire someone with a known history of bad behavior. I'm talking about protecting workers from unfair treatment by an employer for something that isn't rooted in behavior, but in the employer's suspicions about someone's state of being. A person isn't gay because they engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex - behavior doesn't determine their status as a gay person. They engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex because they're gay - it's a characteristic, not behavior.


Quote: Quote: It is the business of the State to ensure fair labor practices Firstly, I challenge you to find one part of the Consitution that supports "fair trade".

Secondly, how is it fair that the business owner is being forced to run their business a certain way? It's no longer THEIR business if the State tells them how to run it.
So you support businesses operating as sweatshops then, I take it? How about child labor? Firing women who get pregnant? Or not employing women at all?

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
Good luck finding such a place if you live in much of America that isn't urban. I left my hometown and knowing how they still treat gay people there, I would never go back. Nor would I consider going back to Grand Rapids, and it's hardly rural, but still heavily dominated by the Christian Reformed Church.

Well, what do you know? You answered your own question. If you don't like where you live, don't like the attitude of the community, move.

Quote: Quote: DS is right that a job is NOT a right.
You don't believe that a person has a right to support themselves by working? Take away anti-discrimination laws and you might as well be telling people that what they have is a right to starve to death.

Thats ridiculous. What I am saying is that no one has a RIGHT to a job. They do have the right to work, if a company is willing to hire them. But, if they aren't hired, then perhaps they should look at what marketable skills they have. You know, I have been out at every single job I have had, and never had a problem. (And believe me when I say I hardly live in an enlightened area of the country). And don't tell me that "people aren't hired because they are gay." How does that come up in a job interview? "So, sir, tell me about your last job and what your sexual orientation is." Please. If people are bringing up their sexuality in a job interview, and thus leading to them not getting the job, it probably has less to do with them being gay and more to do with them being unprofessional.


Quote: Quote: That is why I like Indiana's employment laws. Indiana is an "at will" state.
So is Michigan and it s*cks.

Uh huh. Good argument.

Quote: Quote: I can leave whenever I want, and I can be fired whenever they want....and the law doesn't care. And, yet, despite this fact, homosexual Hoosiers have NOT fallen in to the "gay ghetto" you describe.
You might be surprised how many of them actually have, leaving for places like Chicago, San Francisco, New York. Of those who have remained, a fair number are likely closeted.

Then that is their own decision to leave Indiana, or Michigan since you mentioned it, for another city. Their reasons are their own. Their current situation is their own doing, if they are not in the position they had hoped for.

Quote: Quote: If a business wants to create internal protocols for hiring and firing, that is their business. It is NOT the business of the state to make sure that every gets a job and keeps a job.
It is the business of the State to ensure fair labor practices.

It is the business of the State to ensure that there are safe working conditions, yes. It is not the business of the State to ensure that everyone has a job.

[F'losrix]

UrielsFyre wrote: Well, what do you know? You answered your own question. If you don't like where you live, don't like the attitude of the community, move.
Forcing me to leave behind my family. I shouldn't have to choose between them and working. I shouldn't have to leave the state where my family has lived since the 1830's, where I was born and have lived my whole life. If the anti-gay crowd who put through the marriage amendment prevail and we lose our domestic partnership benefits, we will have little choice but to leave the state. I know freedom, and this situation doesn't smell anything like it - it just smells, period.

Let me be clear - I question the idea that any employer should be forced by the state to offer those benefits. But they certainly shouldn't be forced into discontinuing them; that action does nothing to promote the welfare of society.

Quote: Thats ridiculous. What I am saying is that no one has a RIGHT to a job. They do have the right to work, if a company is willing to hire them.
Until the company begins to have suspicions that they're gay, then they lose their 'right' to work. Nice.

Quote: But, if they aren't hired, then perhaps they should look at what marketable skills they have.
Not everyone has the ability or the opportunity to acquire a different skill set and completely change jobs.

Quote: You know, I have been out at every single job I have had, and never had a problem.
Consider yourself very lucky, then.

Quote: (And believe me when I say I hardly live in an enlightened area of the country).
Believe me when I say I'm skeptical. Ever been attacked with a pitchfork on the job? I have, and I wasn't 'out'. It was based on someone's suspicions. Needless to say I quit that job, since the supervisor witnessed the whole thing and no disciplinary action was taken.

Quote: And don't tell me that "people aren't hired because they are gay."
They aren't. I have experienced it, personally.

Quote: How does that come up in a job interview? "So, sir, tell me about your last job and what your sexual orientation is."
Try this, which may not be word for word, but pretty darned close to an exact quote from an interview that I had. At the time, I had barely taken a seat and hadn't uttered much more than a 'Hello' and 'Thanks for giving me the opportunity to interview with you.' Before you jump to conclusions, you should note that there was nothing oustanding about my appearance - I dressed conservatively, have never dyed my hair, nothing unusual about the cut; I have no piercings, no tatoos. I am neither excessively masculine nor feminine in my mannerisms or way of speaking. Yet, here's what I was told: "Well, Mr. Smith, I have to say I'm a little surprised to see a man applying for this job." (it was a clerical position) "It makes me suspicious...you're not...gay...are you? Because if you are, I'd encourage you to seek employment elsewhere. We don't hire queers."

That was in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Not exactly a hotbed of tolerance. Needless to say, it was a VERY short interview.

When I did finally manage to land a job at another company, I stayed for 5 years of hell. Constant taunts and baiting from the all-male warehouse and sales staff, who had a disdain for the clerical staff in general and me in particular because I wasn't constantly boasting about sexual conquests with women. It made them uneasy and suspicious.

Quote: Please. If people are bringing up their sexuality in a job interview, and thus leading to them not getting the job, it probably has less to do with them being gay and more to do with them being unprofessional.
I was professional, during interviews and in my work. I didn't have to bring up my sexuality - coworkers were all too eager to assume that it was their place to 'investigate' it. One doesn't have to be 'out' for there to be a problem. The mere fact of being over 30 and not having a girlfriend or wife seems to make people extra nosy. Avoiding non-work related interaction with coworkers just makes it worse. Then you're perceived as some sort of snob or not fitting in. And when you don't fit in, you're quickly out the door.

So be very thankful for your positive experiences - because I can tell you there are a heck of a lot of gay people who don't share in them, myself included.

Quote: Then that is their own decision to leave Indiana, or Michigan since you mentioned it, for another city. Their reasons are their own. Their current situation is their own doing, if they are not in the position they had hoped for.
Totally ignoring the reason why they've been forced to make a decision to leave, which is not necessarily a situation they created on their own.

Quote: It is the business of the State to ensure that there are safe working conditions, yes. It is not the business of the State to ensure that everyone has a job.
I never said it was. Is safety an employer's only obligation in handling their employees? I suppose you don't believe that sexual harassment is an issue, either? No employer responsibility with regard to the working environment so long as it is physically safe? Why should safety even be an issue - if people don't like the risks, shouldn't they just leave and find a different kind of job? After all, isn't the employer free to do whatever he wants with his business and its employees as a matter of property rights?

My entire problem with the libertarian viewpoint is that it can naturally lead to extremes - left to their own devices, people can and will do some very nasty things to each other. Neither do I subscribe to the other extreme, where people's lives and the business world should be so heavily regulated that life is miserable and making a profit becomes impossible.

What I do believe in is balance. Individual rights must be juggled against what is best for the whole of society. Same with businesses; ownership does not entitle one to do anything they please at the expense of society (e.g. polluting the environment) or individual workers (e.g. creating unsafe working conditions or hostile working environments). I happen to believe that letting employers fire people based on merely having suspicions about their sexual orientation creates an imbalance in our society. I don't think anyone is entitled to special privileges just because of their skin color, gender, religious choices or sexual orientation. I do believe that everyone deserves a fair chance in life. Not a guarantee, but a fair chance. Anti-discrimination laws have been adopted to ensure that they get that fair chance. It appears to me that you favor it being taken away.

What makes for a more stable yet progressive society - the practice of every man/women for themselves? Or one that emphasizes tolerant cooperation? In my opinion, the libertarian view is one that encourages the selfishness inherent in the former by overemphasizing absolute liberty at the expense of a progressive and stable society.

I prefer a system that recognizes the necessity of accepting a few, very carefully chosen limits upon some liberties in the interest of promoting a balanced society. Make no mistake, we must be jealous in the guarding of our liberties - we shouldn't just give them up because someone tells us it's for the good of society - failing to do so leads to crap like the Patriot Act. But you don't preserve liberties by making them absolutes. If one has an absolute liberty to run a business in any way they see fit under the guise of property rights, it isn't long before the actual people working there become little more than property.

End rant.

[Enoch]

Skeptical, instead of responding sentence by sentence, I want to address the two main contentions of your post. First, the personal experiences that we have both had. Second, the proposed idea of legislation that you have misunderstood my viewpoint on.

First, personal experiences are as varied as the individuals describing them. To make any sort of generalization based on your experiences, or mine for that matter, would be fallacious. Certainly there are examples of gay men and women being denied jobs, harassed, threatened, or fired for being gay. However, there are as many examples of gay men and women working happily for years without incident. Using anecdotal evidence gets us nowhere in this instance. Which, truthfully, I am as guilty of using as anyone. Therefore, if we can agree that anecdotal evidence is not conducive to a debate, we can mutually move forward to the second contention.

That contention being that anti-discrimination laws are needed. When I stated that the State has a responsibility to provide safe working conditions for employees, that is not simply talking about physical risks, such as death or dismemberment. Safe working conditions involve laws against harassment (sexual or otherwise). That, I am sure, is something we can agree on.

However, where we differ, is on the idea that the state should be intervening in whether or not an employer is forced to hire, or forced to keep, an employee they do not wish to have. Firing an employee, at most companies, is an arduous task due to the possibility of a lawsuit. In a society as litigious as ours people are eager to scream that they were fired for being gay/black/Jewish/female/disabled/short/foreign-born/etc. What sort of protection does an employer have against those lawsuits? Even if they win the lawsuit the company is out a lot of money in legal costs. Falsely filed lawsuits abound in our society, and companies are paying for it.

If an employee truly has a harassment case, it should be against an individual, or a company that was notified and did not properly act to stop it. However, if I am fired from my job tomorrow, why should I have the right to sue my former boss for it? Should I have the right to force my boss to keep me on as an employee if he is unhappy with me? As an employee I have the right to quit with or without notice, for whatever reason I deem fit. Why, then, the double standard that employers aren't allowed to fire? To force employers too keep an employee on a job is ridiculous.

So, this begs the question of how to handle the seeming contradictions, between the need for safe workplace laws and the unneeded laws against firing. The solutions are twofold, and can be seen on a personal and corporate level.

First, personally, we need to take responsibility as a society for righting the wrongs that have occurred. Stop patronizing companies that are known to have practices with which you disagree. Encourage your employer, or the employers in your community, to adapt internal standards to not only protect the physical and mental wellbeing of employees, but to protect them from being fired without cause.

Second, corporately, companies need to address practices that are detrimental to the health of their employees. Addressing issues such as harassment and unfair hiring/firing practices will help them in the long run. They will gain the reputation of being an enlightened and compassionate corporation, thus helping their position in the communities they serve. In addition, it will lessen their chances of being involved in frivolous lawsuits.

We can see that anti-discrimination practices are needed in our society. However, it is up to individuals and corporations to enact these policies. It is not the business of the state. We, as a society, need to take responsibility for ourselves, our communities, and the businesses with which we interact. A government that is allowed the role of "parent" to businesses, in too many ways, will simply continue to expand and control us even more.

[F'losrix]

I'm only going to quote the parts that I'm responding to, in the interest of keeping things readable.

UrielsFyre wrote: First, personal experiences are as varied as the individuals describing them.
Should we ignore the consistency of experience that some people have had with regard to this matter? I think not. But we'll move on...

Quote: Certainly there are examples of gay men and women being denied jobs, harassed, threatened, or fired for being gay. However, there are as many examples of gay men and women working happily for years without incident.
I think that's open to debate, not proved fact.

Quote: If an employee truly has a harassment case, it should be against an individual, or a company that was notified and did not properly act to stop it.
Just try pursuing one without anti-discrimination law to give you backing. Employers are quite free without them to let the work environment become very hostile and harassing, with little fear for consequences. Can't sue if you don't have a legal grounds, no legal grounds without a law to back up the claim of harassment based in discrimination.

Quote: However, if I am fired from my job tomorrow, why should I have the right to sue my former boss for it?
You would offer ex-employees no option to sue for damages for wrongful termination, then?

Quote: Should I have the right to force my boss to keep me on as an employee if he is unhappy with me?
\/ Can't adequately answer that unless we delve into what the source of that unhappiness is. If it's not in any way job-related and based completely on your boss' personal opinions about homosexuality and his unconfirmed suspicions that someone is gay - whether those suspicions are justified or not - is that an acceptable reason for him to terminate their employment?

Quote: As an employee I have the right to quit with or without notice, for whatever reason I deem fit. Why, then, the double standard that employers aren't allowed to fire?
Who holds most of the power in an employment relationship? It isn't equal, not by a longshot. If I quit, the employer will be inconvenienced and likely incur some expense in replacing me, but it won't sink their business. If I'm fired without just cause, my entire life can be plunged into chaos by the loss of that income source. We hold employers to a different standard because 1) they aren't, generally speaking, a 'person' and don't have the same rights, and 2) because the balance of power between employer and employee is very lopsided.

Quote: To force employers too keep an employee on a job is ridiculous.
To give them a free hand to practice unwarranted discrimination is ridiculous.

Quote: So, this begs the question of how to handle the seeming contradictions, between the need for safe workplace laws and the unneeded laws against firing.
\/ You mean your OPINION that the laws that regulate terminations are unnecessary. I hold a different opinion.

Quote: First, personally, we need to take responsibility as a society for righting the wrongs that have occurred.
Our society has done so, by electing representatives who have enacted anti-discrimination laws as a solution.

Quote: Stop patronizing companies that are known to have practices with which you disagree.
How informed do you really think the average person is regarding various companies' systematic practices of anti-gay discrimination? I would say not very - until someone files a lawsuit based on anti-discrimination laws.

Quote: Encourage your employer, or the employers in your community, to adapt internal standards to not only protect the physical and mental wellbeing of employees, but to protect them from being fired without cause.
And be prepared to have them laugh in your face since there's not much incentive for them to take on the expense of doing so.

Quote: Second, corporately, companies need to address practices that are detrimental to the health of their employees. Addressing issues such as harassment and unfair hiring/firing practices will help them in the long run.
Perhaps, but good luck convincing them of it.

Quote: They will gain the reputation of being an enlightened and compassionate corporation, thus helping their position in the communities they serve.
And if they're a large corporation that is the region's chief employer, with plenty of cash to grease the palms of corrupt local government, they should care about their reputation in the already subservient community, why?

Quote: We can see that anti-discrimination practices are needed in our society. However, it is up to individuals and corporations to enact these policies. It is not the business of the state.
If our society believed it could be handled effectively by individual or community effort absent the government's involvement, do you really think our representatives would be going in the direction of passing anti-discrimination laws?

Quote: We, as a society, need to take responsibility for ourselves, our communities, and the businesses with which we interact. A government that is allowed the role of "parent" to businesses, in too many ways, will simply continue to expand and control us even more.
The role of government is always parental, that's simply the nature of the beast. It is not a partnership, despite what the rhetoric of politicians would have you believe. I agree with not allowing the government to take this parental role to overbearing extremes. Anti-discrimination law, properly applied, is no such an extreme.

[Demonic Spoon]

Nelson wrote: So, you also support companies being able to pay women less than men? How about a removal of minimum wage, elimination of health standards in the workplace, removal of benefits - because businesses shouldn't have to do what the state tells them to do?

Are we looking -forward- to a society that has industrial-revolution-esque children working in factories?

Yes. I want business owners to be able to pay whoever they want whatever they want. The minimum wage is rediculous, and health standards should not be mandatory. If a worker wants something they their company does not offer, they can find a company that has it. If there are none, they can start their own business and outcompete others with their better policies. It's called the Free Market.

And I am not for children working in factories. THat has nothing to do with the State telling people how to run their business.





Quote: And likewise, they rarely cease without the government's participation.


And? It doesn't matter how they cease. THey only start when the government sanctions it. IF they never start, then there is not an issue.

Quote: Red herring - I never said anything about 'solely by citizens'.

I was saying that the government was essentially for such widespread discrimination to occur. If the government is blind to race, then society-by and large-will be too.

Quote: What planet do you live on? Apparently you missed that story about the town council in Tennessee (or was it Kentucky?), where they voted to pass an ordinance banning homosexuals. No joke.


And how often does that happen? Either way, there are very, VERY few towns in which this is the case. If the gay guy doesn't like the people in his town, he can move. Just like if I don't like my town, I can move.

Quote: Also not true. They'll actually gain some business from people who will support them BECAUSE they have taken an anti-gay stance.


You think more Americans will support a business for discrimination than those that will shy away from it for that reason? You're too cynical.

Quote: Right, like we all have spare capital sitting around to do that sort of thing and the business know-how to get a company up and running. If you have the misfortune to live in a place that is strongly anti-gay, good luck finding financial backers for a gay-owned business

...then perhaps you shouldn't live in an anti-gay place? Or try and change people's opinions? The civil rights supporters in the 50's and 60's didn't ask for the govenrment to enforce equality-they asked the PEOPLE to treat them as equals. It worked, too.

Quote: PrinceJunius is a 13-year old who lives near Ann Arbor - the state's most liberal city. He simply doesn't have the depth of experience that someone like me possesses at an age of 42 years old and having lived all over the state. I have publicly disagreed with his portrayal of Ann Arbor a number of times on this forum, as I happen to live nearby as well and actually work in Ann Arbor. And why did I end up here? You guessed it - because it's about the only place in the state where a gay person has a halfway decent chance at making a living without having to be fully closeted. Doesn't mean I haven't faced harassment even here.

Michigan is not tolerant of gay people. Just last year the state passed an anti-gay marriage amendment that also banned civil unions and recognition of domestic partnerships. Now its proponents are suing to force public employers to rescind the benefits they offer to domestic partners. There are no laws to protect gay people from unwarranted discrimination in Michigan.


Should KKK members be protected, by law, from discrimination in the workplace? Should a black business owner be forced to hire someone who wants him and is whole race to be hung?


Quote: What does that have to do with a company firing someone they suspect of being gay just because they're over 30, aren't married and don't engage in casual conversation with coworkers that portrays an obvious interest in the opposite sex?

You're talking about a company being forced to hire someone with a known history of bad behavior. I'm talking about protecting workers from unfair treatment by an employer for something that isn't rooted in behavior, but in the employer's suspicions about someone's state of being. A person isn't gay because they engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex - behavior doesn't determine their status as a gay person. They engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex because they're gay - it's a characteristic, not behavior.


Ah, but it's your choice to make it known that you are gay. They only know what you give them.

Also, who decides what's "Bad" behavior? To them, the violence was perfectly moral-just like you believe being gay is perfectly moral. They find it immoral, just like you find racists immoral.

Quote: So you support businesses operating as sweatshops then, I take it? How about child labor? Firing women who get pregnant? Or not employing women at all?

Sure. If a company wants to loose employees to other companies who don't operate sweatshops, then go ahead. If a woman can't do her job because of a choice she made to have sex at the risk of getting pregnant, then go ahead and fire her. While it's shi**y behavior, word will get out that the company did this and they will loose business. The Free Market is great aint it?

Not employing women? Go ahead. If they want to deal with the loss in business from non-sexists everywhere, then it's not my problem.

And no, I do not advocate child labor. The child labor laws aren't a restriction on the business-it's a restriction on children.

[MarshalPetain]

Both sides of this argument are indeed wrong. Marriage in and of itself, between ANYONE goes against the fundamental right of freedom of religion. The government's dictating of the stipulations of what marriage is and is not and its requirement of marriage licenses is essentially dictating the internal workings of churches throughout the nation. The only truly right thing to do is to completely wipe out governmental marriage, remove every mention of it from law. Civil unions should be the only thing the government controls, the existence of marriage laws is unconstitutional.

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: And likewise, they rarely cease without the government's participation.


And? It doesn't matter how they cease. THey only start when the government sanctions it. IF they never start, then there is not an issue.
False statement. Discrimination begins where there are gaps in the law and therefore no legal basis for the government's intervention. A lack of action is not sanction. I'm not denying that the government has sanctioned it at various times in the past. But government isn't the root cause of discrimination - that's just silly.

Quote: If the government is blind to race, then society-by and large-will be too.
BS. Humans are not naturally embracing of those who differ from them. It is, in fact, the government turning a blind eye to discrimination that some have tried to argue as tacit sanctioning of it.

Quote: If the gay guy doesn't like the people in his town, he can move. Just like if I don't like my town, I can move.
Why should he have to?

Quote: Quote: Also not true. They'll actually gain some business from people who will support them BECAUSE they have taken an anti-gay stance.


You think more Americans will support a business for discrimination than those that will shy away from it for that reason? You're too cynical.
No, just realistic.

Quote: Quote: Right, like we all have spare capital sitting around to do that sort of thing and the business know-how to get a company up and running. If you have the misfortune to live in a place that is strongly anti-gay, good luck finding financial backers for a gay-owned business

...then perhaps you shouldn't live in an anti-gay place?
As if I had a choice of where I was born?

Quote: Or try and change people's opinions?
Change is an excruciatingly slow process. Just what did you think I was doing by having this discussion?

Quote: The civil rights supporters in the 50's and 60's didn't ask for the govenrment to enforce equality-they asked the PEOPLE to treat them as equals. It worked, too.
They went to the people because the government provided them with no recourse. You're version of history on this matter is revisionist.

Quote: Should KKK members be protected, by law, from discrimination in the workplace? Should a black business owner be forced to hire someone who wants him and is whole race to be hung?
I'm not answering this a second time.

Quote: Ah, but it's your choice to make it known that you are gay. They only know what you give them.
False statements. People make assumptions about others sexuality, based on a number of factors (age in combination with being unmarried, failure to talk casually about relationships with the opposite sex, etc.) My 'choice' in the matter is between pretending to be a heterosexual (in other words, lying) or being as true to myself as possible without giving up any information that tips someone off to the difference in my sexuality. In my experience, the latter approach has very limited success. I refuse to take the former path - that would be immoral.

Quote: Also, who decides what's "Bad" behavior? To them, the violence was perfectly moral-just like you believe being gay is perfectly moral. They find it immoral, just like you find racists immoral.
Give me a break...violence is moral? Rarely, and certainly not in this case. And once again, you're framing the debate as if sexual orientation were behavior - it isn't.

Quote: Quote: So you support businesses operating as sweatshops then, I take it? How about child labor? Firing women who get pregnant? Or not employing women at all?

Sure. If a company wants to loose employees to other companies who don't operate sweatshops, then go ahead. If a woman can't do her job because of a choice she made to have sex at the risk of getting pregnant, then go ahead and fire her. While it's shi**y behavior, word will get out that the company did this and they will loose business. The Free Market is great aint it?
That's hardly how it works. 'Word' would likely only get out as a matter of publicity surrounding her lawsuit against them - a lawsuit she won't be able to file without laws in place to ban gender discrimination.

Quote: Not employing women? Go ahead. If they want to deal with the loss in business from non-sexists everywhere, then it's not my problem.
And how do you think we got to a place where we actually have non-sexists who would view this in a negative light?

Quote: And no, I do not advocate child labor. The child labor laws aren't a restriction on the business-it's a restriction on children.
More BS. Who gets punished for violations of those laws? It ain't the child - it's the business.

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm only going to quote the parts that I'm responding to, in the interest of keeping things readable.

UrielsFyre wrote: First, personal experiences are as varied as the individuals describing them.
Should we ignore the consistency of experience that some people have had with regard to this matter? I think not. But we'll move on...

Quote: Certainly there are examples of gay men and women being denied jobs, harassed, threatened, or fired for being gay. However, there are as many examples of gay men and women working happily for years without incident.
I think that's open to debate, not proved fact.

Quote: If an employee truly has a harassment case, it should be against an individual, or a company that was notified and did not properly act to stop it.
Just try pursuing one without anti-discrimination law to give you backing. Employers are quite free without them to let the work environment become very hostile and harassing, with little fear for consequences. Can't sue if you don't have a legal grounds, no legal grounds without a law to back up the claim of harassment based in discrimination.

Quote: However, if I am fired from my job tomorrow, why should I have the right to sue my former boss for it?
You would offer ex-employees no option to sue for damages for wrongful termination, then?

Quote: Should I have the right to force my boss to keep me on as an employee if he is unhappy with me?
\/ Can't adequately answer that unless we delve into what the source of that unhappiness is. If it's not in any way job-related and based completely on your boss' personal opinions about homosexuality and his unconfirmed suspicions that someone is gay - whether those suspicions are justified or not - is that an acceptable reason for him to terminate their employment?

Quote: As an employee I have the right to quit with or without notice, for whatever reason I deem fit. Why, then, the double standard that employers aren't allowed to fire?
Who holds most of the power in an employment relationship? It isn't equal, not by a longshot. If I quit, the employer will be inconvenienced and likely incur some expense in replacing me, but it won't sink their business. If I'm fired without just cause, my entire life can be plunged into chaos by the loss of that income source. We hold employers to a different standard because 1) they aren't, generally speaking, a 'person' and don't have the same rights, and 2) because the balance of power between employer and employee is very lopsided.

Quote: To force employers too keep an employee on a job is ridiculous.
To give them a free hand to practice unwarranted discrimination is ridiculous.

Quote: So, this begs the question of how to handle the seeming contradictions, between the need for safe workplace laws and the unneeded laws against firing.
\/ You mean your OPINION that the laws that regulate terminations are unnecessary. I hold a different opinion.

Quote: First, personally, we need to take responsibility as a society for righting the wrongs that have occurred.
Our society has done so, by electing representatives who have enacted anti-discrimination laws as a solution.

Quote: Stop patronizing companies that are known to have practices with which you disagree.
How informed do you really think the average person is regarding various companies' systematic practices of anti-gay discrimination? I would say not very - until someone files a lawsuit based on anti-discrimination laws.

Quote: Encourage your employer, or the employers in your community, to adapt internal standards to not only protect the physical and mental wellbeing of employees, but to protect them from being fired without cause.
And be prepared to have them laugh in your face since there's not much incentive for them to take on the expense of doing so.

Quote: Second, corporately, companies need to address practices that are detrimental to the health of their employees. Addressing issues such as harassment and unfair hiring/firing practices will help them in the long run.
Perhaps, but good luck convincing them of it.

Quote: They will gain the reputation of being an enlightened and compassionate corporation, thus helping their position in the communities they serve.
And if they're a large corporation that is the region's chief employer, with plenty of cash to grease the palms of corrupt local government, they should care about their reputation in the already subservient community, why?

Quote: We can see that anti-discrimination practices are needed in our society. However, it is up to individuals and corporations to enact these policies. It is not the business of the state.
If our society believed it could be handled effectively by individual or community effort absent the government's involvement, do you really think our representatives would be going in the direction of passing anti-discrimination laws?

Quote: We, as a society, need to take responsibility for ourselves, our communities, and the businesses with which we interact. A government that is allowed the role of "parent" to businesses, in too many ways, will simply continue to expand and control us even more.
The role of government is always parental, that's simply the nature of the beast. It is not a partnership, despite what the rhetoric of politicians would have you believe. I agree with not allowing the government to take this parental role to overbearing extremes. Anti-discrimination law, properly applied, is no such an extreme.

You attack me for offering opinion, and yet turn around and do the same. For that, there is no reason to continue a discussion with you.

[F'losrix]

UrielsFyre wrote: You attack me for offering opinion, and yet turn around and do the same. For that, there is no reason to continue a discussion with you.
Most arguments are the assertion of one's opinion in the form of a conclusion drawn from facts. One generally tries to refute what is asserted by exposing fallacies and logical errors. But when you construct your argument in a way that tries to get the reader to posit your opinion as fact, and then build upon that opinion as if it were accepted fact in constructing your main argument, you can expect me to point this out as well. The 'attack' is aimed at your form of argument, not you personally.

Sadly, you didn't give specifics as to what you thought I was improperly offering as opinion represented to be fact, so there's nothing for me to respond to on that score.

If you don't want to debate further, that's fine with me - I can always put the time to good use somewhere else.