Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
What criteria do we use to make that determination?
Ability, for the most part. Gays can do any jobs straights can.
So no employer is allowed to make any hiring decision based on any criteria other than ability? How precisely do we enforce such a thing?
Quote:
Quote:
As I stated earlier, a logical criteria is to examine the broad socio-economic condition of the group in question and determine if some specific discriminatory action(s) is affecting that condition to a sufficient degree to result in a significant and clear disadvantage for that group.
I don't think too many gays are being discriminated against in the work place on the left coasts & in most of those states, its illegal to do so. Its those other states that are the problem.
Are they? Do you have statistics to show that homosexuals as a whole within our society are socioeconomically disadvantaged *and* that discrimination based on sexual orientation by employers is the cause of that socioeconomic disadvantage *and* that this disadvantage is so significant that we must take action to prevent it? That's what I keep asking people to do, and people keep tap dancing around.
Quote:
Quote:
Historically, we have been able to show this for religious affiliation, and for sex, and for race. Thus, over time, we've added each of those to a short list of criteria which cannot be used to discriminate. That's the criteria we use. The problem is that when you try to apply that criteria to sexual orientation, it doesn't work.
If "ability to do the job" is the reason we've decided its not ok to discriminate against one's religion, gender, or race; how does that not work for sexual orientation?
You didn't read my post. I was talking about the reason we added those groups to the short list of groups who are protected from discrimination. And that reason was that there were significant (some would argue overwhelming) data showing that those groups were suffering serious socioeconomic disadvantage as a direct result of employer discrimination. That's why we made it illegal for employers to discriminate on those basis.
I don't believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is even in the same ballpark in terms of overall effect on the socioeconomic outcomes of any group within our society. You're free to disagree, of course, but the burden is on *you* to prove that there is sufficient negative impact to a defined group so as to justify creating a special protection for them within our laws. If you can't, then we shouldn't be creating that special protection for them. Kinda obvious, but there you have it.
Prove there's a problem that justifies the solution you're proposing.
Quote:
Quote:
There is not very clear and significant differences in socio-economic status that can be tied directly and purely to sexual orientation. Certainly not when compared to other groups for which we allow discrimination (such as short people, as I mentioned earlier). There must be some objective threshold of "harm" at which we decide is sufficient to justify prohibiting discrimination, and sexual orientation doesn't meet it.
I think its pretty harmful for the gay person who is fired once his bigot of a boss finds out he's gay.
Of course it is. Now show that the set of "gay people" is sufficiently disadvantages as a whole to justify creating a special rule disallowing that discrimination. It's harmful for the guy with long hair to be fired (or not hired) by the boss who's bigoted against guys with long hair. Yet, I don't see anyone saying we should pass a special exception to our laws prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis of someone's hair length.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Obviously, anytime someone is discriminated against, it hurts them. But that's true of
all forms of discrimination. And we don't make all forms of discrimination illegal in our system. So you have to show more than that this one guy right here would be hurt by being discriminated against. You need to show that allowing that particular form of discrimination is so overwhelmingly harmful to a group of people within our society that we absolutely must make it illegal.
Can you do that?
Quote:
I'm fairly certain anyone whom thinks it should be ok to discriminate based upon sexual orientation dislikes homosexuals, or is pandering for the votes of people that do.
You'd be wrong. Ok. Let's put this another way so as to remove any emotional association with this particular issue. And let me also make clear that "ok to discriminate" in this context simply means that we don't pass a law making it illegal, not that the person personally approves. Those are not the same thing.
Do you believe that anyone who thinks it should be ok to discriminate based on hair length dislikes people with long hair, or is pandering for the votes of people who do? I'll assume your answer is no. Part of living in a free society is allowing others to make their own decisions for their own reasons, even when they differ from the decisions and choice you would make because you recognize that you get the same freedom in return. That means that even if I have no problem with guys with long hair, I respect that someone else might, and when it comes to decisions regarding his own property/money (like hiring people for his business) he has every right to decide not to hire guys with long hair.
I grant him that right, because maybe I don't like people with moles, or long fingernails, or who have mullets. His freedom to choose who works for him in his business is the same freedom I have to choose which brand of soap to buy at the store. It's all discrimination. Every time you make a choice you are discriminating. That is not wrong or bad. It's a necessary component of liberty. The point being that in a free society, the freedom to do something should not be dependent on other people agreeing with what you're doing. Thus, even if I personally disagree with someone who doesn't want to employ homosexuals in his business, I must (and will!) defend his right to do that. Because failing to do that is accepting a system that imposes one set of rules and one set of choices on everyone. And that's not liberty. That's the opposite of liberty.
Only when it becomes a really major problem should we step in and infringe that freedom. And we should be really really really careful about making that choice. Doing so for emotional reasons, or because we like a group, or we're afraid of being labeled as a hater of a group if we don't, are absolutely not good reasons.
Quote:
The person who is not hired or fired because their boss dislikes homosexuals is sufficiently disadvantaged, even if the overall rate of disenfranchisement across the country isn't high enough for your standards.
I disagree. It's not about the individual person. It's about the group. That persons right to be employed is less than the employers right to choose how to spend his money employing people. Period. Only if you can show a significant and clearly associated negative impact to an entire definable group as a result of systematic discrimination should we even consider creating an exception to that rule. And, at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, no one here has come close to doing that.
Quote:
Protecting a homosexual's right to work isn't a "special" protection, its equal protection. If you really think thats wrong, well, you're an @#%^.
Of course it's a "special protection". If it were equal protection, we'd prohibit discrimination against anything for any reason at all. We don't do that. We don't come close to doing that. We don't protect the right of short people to work, or people with long hair, or short hair, or painted fingernails, or tatoos, or lack of tatoos, or dyed hair, or any of a thousand other random things about a potential employee which an employer might decide to use to make his hiring decision. We don't do that because in order to do that we'd have to create such a ridiculously authoritarian system so as to eliminate pretty much all freedom. You'd have to have some kind of government organization which assessed potential workers based on ability, and then have it decide who employers must hire with the full force of the law behind their mandate. That's the only way to achieve your "only based on ability" standard.
Um... Stop and think about that. That would not be a free society at all. Trust me. You don't want to live in that kind of a dystopia. But that's what would be required for what you are arguing for. We have to allow employers the freedom to hire folks based on whatever criteria they want. It's their money and their choice. Once we understand this, then we understand that this issue isn't as simple as saying "it's discrimination" and declaring it wrong. Discrimination is good and necessary for a free society. Start with that assumption and then assess (objectively) this one case.
And btw, the whole "agree with me or you're an ***" argument is weak as hell.
Edited, Nov 15th 2013 4:43pm by gbaji 
