TheNiche

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

From a previous post of mine: If one of them finds the negotiated terms of a proposed agreement unacceptable and decides to walk, I believe that to be their prerogative. If the government intrudes to force the uncooperative party to agree to terms that are not satisfactory, that is theft. It does not matter, in my mind whether the government's force is by financial or physical means; the victim may as well be put at the point of a gun and told to sacrifice that which is dear to him, whether it be his property or his moral code, the latter being the very thing that defines him. My personal experiences, having worked with lots of gay people, many of them very successful, in a world chock-full of non-gays.Besides, if homophobes were the majority, do you really think that this kind of legislation would ever be passed? More or less, yes. I'd also say that anyone that believes that employers are obligated to do anything at all for employees other than to abide by their own agreements is speaking from a moral basis. I deeply respect that.

You've totally misunderstood the nature of my complaint against this law. Go back and read what I've already said.

Primarily young professionals, empty nesters. Secondarily, well-to-do transients (i.e. divorcees, job leap-froggers, students, etc.) As for the subprime fallout, it varies widely in the Inner Loop. Your neighborhood is pretty stable. River Oaks, West U, and Bellaire are the most stable. Places like 3rd and 5th Wards, or near OST & Scott, are taking it on the chin. So I'd argue that although neighborhoods with better demographics may have had the rent/own calculus affected by a couple extra points of interest on a loan, the effect is reasonably small as it would pertain to prospective residents of these new complexes.

Personally, I think that that's really ugly.

Living in new construction along a freeway doesn't have much to do with affordable housing. It has more to do with product positioning.

Not precisely. The proximate cause of a loss of freedom is not an issue that I've been concentrating on. I've been talking about what the optimal scope of government ought to be. If you want to talk about what caused this legislation, we must talk about political mechanisms. No. I do not mean to say that gays are not a demographic minority. That the majority of people accept them for who they are while others do not is what makes this a moral issue, one that is being legislated so as to have the effect of forcing one group's beliefs on another.

You seem to express regard only for the protection of employees' concerns. What of owners' concerns? They're all just human. All equal. All deserving of equal treatment. Having accepted that premise, perhaps I might illustrate the absurdity of this law by turning the tables. At what point should government recognize that bigots are not only employers but also employees? An agreement between employer and employee to cooperate towards a common goal requires the sanction of both parties, whereas each of those parties enjoy equal rights and protections under the law...or at least should in my judgement. Some may claim that there is a fundamental difference on account of that the employer is just a greedy scoundrel concerned only with his own profits. What of it? Is an employee not also driven by greed? Are wages not just profits by another name? So do you believe that the government should also force homophobic employees to work for gay employers? And yes, I realize that there is some statistical impracticality inherent to this question as it might apply in reality, but if only as a hypothetical, I'd ask whether you'd back such a policy? What would you consider the benefit? Do you imagine that gay employers would be happy at being forced to employ people that find them despicable? Do you suppose that homophobes would be very happy about working for gay employers? Do you see any real difference when the tables are turned back to the realm of reality? If so, please be elaborative. I'd love to hear all about it. Also, Red: I don't pretend that it is or could be a perfect world, and I'm not sure why you and others pretend that I believe that. I am no Pangloss. I never said that free markets were perfectly efficient. In fact, I thought that I'd stated earlier that that they have some problems requiring regulation. Theivery is one of those problems. And incidentally, by pointing out that wealthy folks representing a sort of fraudulent aristocracy in this country, endowed with special privelidges, you touch on a problem--corruption--that can be aided by taking a very exacting, minimalist, and cautious approach to law. Please dispense with the straw men and red herrings.

You're very correct. Myself and my parents experienced numerous incidences of discrimination while living in McAllen. I recognize that it was a minority of the population that took it upon themselves to be particularly rude to us, although there were some cultural influences. For instance, my father went through job after job in the healthcare industry trying to find a firm in which nepotism wasn't present and didn't create problems. The Mexican culture being very family-oriented, and he expecting that all his subordinates--even the owners' sons/nephews/etc.--would actually perform work, he was never very successful. So he excersized his freedom to quit...numerous times. When he gave up on McAllen, he moved up this direction. He's much happier now. Serves as an inspiration: 1) figure out what it takes to make you happy, 2) execute. I also agree that this is a pretty small issue in the grand scheme of things.

In this specific case, it is not our free will (yours and mine) that is threatened. It is the will of an ever-diminishing minority. It is important to protect the free will of the minority because a law that establishes or stregnthens such precedent that lends credence to the notion that the majority can or should force others to act upon its moral judgement is in my opinion an erosion of the very pillars of human rights. You see, I am the minority--not as far as gay-bashing is concerned, but certainly in most matters. I would be hard-pressed, I think, to find someone that is in the majority on every single issue or that leads a perfectly 'normal' life in every conceivable way. My creed is very simply to live and let live, as I acknowledge that there is no single path to happiness. In fact, it is entirely possible that people believing something that I do not may impart to me wisdom that--if normality were legislated--would be lost to a vastly boring herd of humanity, reduced to a mass, devoid of individuals. ...but that is largely a tangent as it relates to this topic. I will spare you the 'slippery slope' fallacy, though it might not be entirely without validity.

No.

Firstly: I know Klineberg. Klienberg knows how to ask a question. Look, if you're expressing nonsense with the intention of just stirring the pot so that other people will react to you, that might be called trolling. Frankly, I've been giving you that benefit for a while now, and continue to do so. I'm not asking those questions of you because I have an expectation (rational or not) that people will express what they believe with some degree of completeness. You aren't though. It still sounds like you're just being whiny. If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise don't waste my time.

That's right. The reason: to preserve free will.

I don't recall ever having disagreed with you either.

Say hello to Mrs. Sullivan for me.

Btw, folks: I'm not an anarchist or pure libertarian. When it comes to social policy, that's one thing. When it comes to economic policy, there is a certain level of regulation that is necessary to ensure political stability. For instance, while libertarians will argue to no end against anti-trust regulation, I'm fairly accepting of it. Monopolies eliminate nearly all of the benefits of free and competitive markets, but they are a natural outgrowth of free markets, so there must be some intervention. In contrast, there are some instances--especially with respect to intellectual property--where temporary monopolies can be beneficial in that they can be incentives for innovation. So I'm a big fan of patents.

Slavery is a matter related to human rights, which as I've established earlier in the discussion, is a matter that pertains to all humans. It is in my view unrelated to this subject on account of that I only take issue with that this legislation 1) recognizes any innate differences between gay or straight people, and 2) that it acts to force a code of morality upon the citizenry.

You presume that the greatest good is a world without racial discrimination, in which all employers act alike. It is my premise that the greatest good is a world in which individuals may think and act of their own accord. Perhaps intolerance will never be entirely defeated. I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with people being silenced, deprived of free will, even if it is a freedom that will be their own financial undoing. Perhaps they place nonpecuniary value upon the execution of their own moral beliefs. It is not my place to deprive them of the satisfaction derived from living what they perceive as a moral life. I may be able to change how it is that they perceive satisfaction, thus changing their actions, but I will not be an accomplice to government-sanctioned theft of one man's satisfaction.

Because you're free to seek another workplace. That's how.

Morality is a discussion of good vs. bad, right vs. wrong. What is fair hiring practice? Have you considered that the bigot might consider it unfair to him that he would be forced to hire someone that he isn't comfortable with? It is an entirely subjective matter. It is a matter of morality. His and yours. If you and people of like mind use government processes to silence your opponent and strip him of his power to demonstrate free will, is that also something that you don't perceive as a moral issue? Or does your deeply-committed sense of righteousness trump the other's well-being?

But that's just the thing. I don't see it as the government's duty to dictate that people shouldn't behave as they do. Now that doesn't mean that I personally won't pick a verbal fight with such people on the basis of my own moral beliefs, or that I condone their behavior in any way whatsoever. But it ought to be their choice to accept or decline my basis of morality. An argument of this nature won by government intervention is in fact not an argument that has been won, but one in which the due process of reason has been usurped by force.

Yep. Barring very basic biological differences as they might pertain to narrow circumstances such as healthcare policy, it is my belief that all persons should be treated equally under the law regardless of their age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, or socioeconomic background.

Whether the government forces them to keep you on staff or not, it might be a really good idea. The last thing I want to do is legislate morality.

I think you just answered my question. If the employer in question is homophobic and most gays don't want to work for a homophobic employer, then it seems like an issue that largely resolved without regulation.

If true, then that person is in the wrong industry. You ought not to pretend that people are pidgeonholed into a single career for life, that they must blindly follow the orders of an ownership class on some presumed path to happiness.