House Approves Broad Protections For Gay Workers

[TheNiche]

So the free market got rid of slavery in the US, and has totally eliminated racial discrimination in the workplace. Amazing. That free market, that's some market!

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.

[gwilson]

Nope. I think our current system needs more regulation, not less.

The free market is an excellent tool for some jobs, but not a panacea for all of society's problems. Our pragmatism is one of our greatest virtues. We don't have to follow a simple-minded dogma. We get to do what works and we don't make too big a fuss about changing strategies.

More regulation never helps.

[gwilson]

What do you say to those (and I'm one of them) that contend that the government FORCING "fairness" is more inflammatory than anything else?

I know many people who have different prejudices, some based on experience, others based on how they were raised. What I see happen quite often is whenever one of them started getting a bit more mellow on, for example, the topic of racism, Al Sharpton pulls the race card, gets someones rights trampled and starts another little race war and reminds him of why he held his beliefs in the first place.

As humans, we are all prejudice or bigoted in some sense of the term. It is impossible to not be. But when something counter to our beliefs is shoved down our throats, it tends to leave a bitter taste which, in effect, counter-acts any of the good that was initially meant.

[TheNiche]

More regulation never helps.

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.

[gwilson]

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.

It is a common fallacy that is thrown around whenever matters of rights or perceived rights are brought up.Quite frankly, comparing ANYTHING related to fair practices to slavery is laughable and intellectually dishonest.

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.

Minor tangent continued...Anti-trust regulation PRESERVES free markets. It is the thousands of other regulations I'm, in general, opposed to (though I'd love to through them one by one).

[Perimeter285]

Saying that sexuality is a choice is the ultimate in ignorance. Who would choose to be gay, given the extra million hurdles that are thrown into one's life? You love and are attracted to who you love and are attracted to. Nobody chooses that. Again, if it were a choice, nobody would choose it.

That being said, I'm not certain this law is necessary or even wanted. While it's nice to know that gay people won't have to live in fear of losing their jobs if it passes, how much more must people's free will (including employers') be squeezed in this country before we're no longer the Land of the Free? Political correctness and policing of thought are a cancer in America today, and even if I do stand to gain from the passage of this law, I can't help but think it's just more chipping away of individual freedoms.

[crunchtastic]

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.

Good that you clarified, Niche. I was beginning to wonder if you were hitting the Ayn Rand a little too hard lately.

[memebag]

Political correctness and policing of thought are a cancer in America today, and even if I do stand to gain from the passage of this law, I can't help but think it's just more chipping away of individual freedoms.

Why should firing someone for being straight or gay be treated as an "individual freedom"?

[gwilson]

Saying that sexuality is a choice is the ultimate in ignorance. Who would choose to be gay, given the extra million hurdles that are thrown into one's life? You love and are attracted to who you love and are attracted to. Nobody chooses that. Again, if it were a choice, nobody would choose it.

Wow. Just wow. No one is saying it is a CHOICE. I haven't, and unless I missed someones post, I don't think anyone else has either. I do not, in any way, think that someone woke up one day and said "hey, I think Im gonna go for guys". While there are those who I believe fly the banner high in an effort to rebel, they are not the majority by any means.I believe it is a product of environment. How exactly to define or quantify that, I can't tell you. I do not believe it to be choice nor do I believe it to be natural (as in encoded in ones DNA). The presence of homosexual activity in other species does not denote that is a naturally occurring phenomenon that they were born in to. Convenience and access are, imo, the driving forces of that.

That being said, I'm not certain this law is necessary or even wanted. While it's nice to know that gay people won't have to live in fear of losing their jobs if it passes, how much more must people's free will (including employers') be squeezed in this country before we're no longer the Land of the Free? Political correctness and policing of thought are a cancer in America today, and even if I do stand to gain from the passage of this law, I can't help but think it's just more chipping away of individual freedoms.

AgreedI do find it really hard to believe that there was, prior to this, in recent history an epidemic of gay men and women losing their jobs or not being hired because of their orientation. Unless you were trying to get a job at the Westboro Baptist Church, I really find that tough to believe.

Why should firing someone for being straight or gay be treated as an "individual freedom"?

Why shouldn't it? Is it not his/her individual freedom to surround himself with those he is comfortable with? Being unpopular or even morally wrong doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to his beliefs.

[RedScare]

I just wish that Americans were as worried about losing "individual freedoms" that our government takes from us in the name of security as they were in the individual rights of employers to discriminate for non-work reasons. I don't recall any of the posters expressing all of these concerns ever agreeing with me when I complain that the Bush government is listening to our phone calls, coming into our homes in secret and without warrants, and throwing people in jail without giving them lawyers or trials. In fact, I have seen a few oppose me on it. But, take away a homophobe boss' right to fire somebone for being a fag, and NOW our "individual freedoms" are being taken away.

[memebag]

Why shouldn't it? Is it not his/her individual freedom to surround himself with those he is comfortable with?

We're talking about jobs, not friends. The law doesn't make it illegal to pick your friends.

Firing someone over sexual orientation shouldn't be considered an individual freedom because it negatively affects someone else. The same reason punching someone in the face or stealing their car isn't an individual freedom.

Being unpopular or even morally wrong doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to his beliefs.

The law doesn't dictate belief, but behavior.

[musicman]

We're talking about jobs, not friends. The law doesn't make it illegal to pick your friends.

unfortunately differentiating between the two is difficult if someone feels they are second rate.

i had someone threaten me with the race card in the workplace. it was definitely a surprise. i probably push the boundaries for some however making accusations towards others is just as offensive.

[gwilson]

We're talking about jobs, not friends. The law doesn't make it illegal to pick your friends.Firing someone over sexual orientation shouldn't be considered an individual freedom because it negatively affects someone else. The same reason punching someone in the face or stealing their car isn't an individual freedom.The law doesn't dictate belief, but behavior.

You're reaching. Punching someone in the face or stealing their car is a far cry from "I don't like you, you're fired". If a man owns a business, and this man doesn't like people with big ears, he should not be forced to employ them. Things are a bit different when you are talking about a manager in a corporation, but that situation is even LESS likely to happen.

unfortunately differentiating between the two is difficult if someone feels they are second rate.i had someone threaten me with the race card in the workplace. it was definitely a surprise. i probably push the boundaries for some however making accusations towards others is just as offensive.

This raises another issue...This doesn't really legislate equality but rather shifts power in to the hands of the employee rather than the employer. If a gay man gets fired now, there is precedent and legislation in place for him to sue the company, even in spite of his dismissal being based on anything BUT his sexual orientation.This happens quite a bit with other "fairness" legislation where a company is forced to bite their tongue and amass a wealth of reasons and evidence to terminate someone, generally to the company, their clients and other employees detriments, to stave off the risk that the race card is pulled on them. I've seen this first hand, and even in the face of the rather long list amassed over the length of four months, the company was still sued.

[crunchtastic]

I just wish that Americans were as worried about losing "individual freedoms" that our government takes from us in the name of security as they were in the individual rights of employers to discriminate for non-work reasons. I don't recall any of the posters expressing all of these concerns ever agreeing with me when I complain that the Bush government is listening to our phone calls, coming into our homes in secret and without warrants, and throwing people in jail without giving them lawyers or trials. In fact, I have seen a few oppose me on it. But, take away a homophobe boss' right to fire somebone for being a fag, and NOW our "individual freedoms" are being taken away.

mmmmm, wedge issues.

Meanwhile, martial law and modern-day internment are, constitutionally, a mere penstroke by the executive away.

[RedScare]

"I don't like you, you're fired".

Actually, this is still legal. "I don't like you BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY. You're fired." That is illegal.

Things are a bit different when you are talking about a manager in a corporation, but that situation is even LESS likely to happen.

Well, alrighty, then! All of this talk of this law being the end of civilization as we know it is a bit overblown, since it seldom happens, isn't it?

This happens quite a bit with other "fairness" legislation where a company is forced to bite their tongue and amass a wealth of reasons and evidence to terminate someone, generally to the company, their clients and other employees detriments, to stave off the risk that the race card is pulled on them. I've seen this first hand, and even in the face of the rather long list amassed over the length of four months, the company was still sued.

Hmmm...you seem to have stated that it rarely happens and that it often happens in the very same post. I wonder which it is.

[memebag]

You're reaching. Punching someone in the face or stealing their car is a far cry from "I don't like you, you're fired". If a man owns a business, and this man doesn't like people with big ears, he should not be forced to employ them.

So if banks don't want to loan black people money, they shouldn't be forced to do that, right? And if colleges don't want to admit Jews, that's their freedom? I think you're reaching.

Give us just one good reason this "individual freedom" should be defended.

[musicman]

So if banks don't want to loan black people money, they shouldn't be forced to do that, right? I think you're reaching.

what bank has specifically told a black family that they can't get a loan because they are black?

[gwilson]

Actually, this is still legal. "I don't like you BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY. You're fired." That is illegal.

Well, alrighty, then! All of this talk of this law being the end of civilization as we know it is a bit overblown, since it seldom happens, isn't it?

Hmmm...you seem to have stated that it rarely happens and that it often happens in the very same post. I wonder which it is.

the rarely and often bits are applied to different parts of the conversation and are in different contexts.

[TheNiche]

I just wish that Americans were as worried about losing "individual freedoms" that our government takes from us in the name of security as they were in the individual rights of employers to discriminate for non-work reasons. I don't recall any of the posters expressing all of these concerns ever agreeing with me when I complain that the Bush government is listening to our phone calls, coming into our homes in secret and without warrants, and throwing people in jail without giving them lawyers or trials. In fact, I have seen a few oppose me on it. But, take away a homophobe boss' right to fire somebone for being a fag, and NOW our "individual freedoms" are being taken away.

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

[RedScare]

what bank has specifically told a black family that they can't get a loan because they are black?

None recently, since this practice has been outlawed for decades.

[memebag]

what bank has specifically told a black family that they can't get a loan because they are black?

In 1991, the Federal Reserve Bank did a study of HMDA data in the Boston area from 1990. They found that a black applicant was 60% more likely to be turned down than a white applicant when all other factors were equal. Why do you ask?

[TheNiche]

So if banks don't want to loan black people money, they shouldn't be forced to do that, right? And if colleges don't want to admit Jews, that's their freedom? I think you're reaching.

Give us just one good reason this "individual freedom" should be defended.

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

[musicman]

In 1991, the Federal Reserve Bank did a study of HMDA data in the Boston area from 1990. They found that a black applicant was 60% more likely to be turned down than a white applicant when all other factors were equal. Why do you ask?

that's not the question that was asked. it was what bank has specifically told a black family that they can't get a loan because they are black?

i know someone who wants to get car loan and put nothing down but say they can't get a loan because they are black.

[memebag]

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

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Are you joking?

that's not the question that was asked. it was what bank has specifically told a black family that they can't get a loan because they are black?

I don't know the names of the banks. The banks don't say "you don't get this loan because you are black", but they do report race and income in the HMDA data, which results in hard data on discriminatory lending practices. Again, why do you ask?

i know people who want to get car loans and put nothing down but say they can't get a loan because they are black.

And? The FRB study wasn't about those people. It was about people with the same credit, income, etc., being turned down because of the color of their skin.

[musicman]

I don't know the names of the banks.

i thought so.....please point them out so i can go protest.

banks have been lenient for several yrs now, giving out loans without putting any money down. this practice has cost them dearly and well, they are returning to more secure lending practices.

[crunchtastic]

i thought so.....please point them out so i can go protest.

banks have been lenient for several yrs now, giving out loans without putting any money down. this practice has cost them dearly and well, they are returning to more secure lending practices.

Careful, if you're not careful, the topic of predatory lending will get us right back around to the sub-prime fallout.

[TheNiche]

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Are you joking?

No.

[KinkaidAlum]

Point taken on the redneck workplace. This must be a silent crime becuae I sure never hear about it. And I am a newshound.

As far as discrimination, straight white males are target A#1. We are the minority today.

Can somebody protect me? Where is Nancy Pelosi when you need her!

Wow.

For someone who likes to play it so tough, you're just a big old whining fella, aren't ya?

"Wha Wha. I like chicks and I am white and my life is so much harder than everyone else's cause talk radio tells me so. I can't compete in this world when Homos, Womyn, and non-whites are in all the positions of power. I mean, just look at the U.S. government. Just look at the CEOs and CFOs of the Fortune 1000. We're being taken over. We white men who love the ladies have it so rough. Woe is me. See, "they've even infiltrated my speech patterns!"

[KinkaidAlum]

My point is that homosexuals want the same equality rights afforded to them that are set for those who can not change their condition. You have no scientific way to prove that you are born gay, and anyone can decide at anytime to be or not be gay. Saying that you are born gay is like saying you were born Muslim and you can't help it. Your sexuality is a choice. Your emotions may lead you in a certain direction, but ultimately you have to choose whether you're going to act on those emotions.

You can't choose to act a certain skin color and your skin turn that color. Just look at white teenage boys who act like the thug black rappers they listen to and emulate. There are some things you can't choose. Sexuality isn't one of them. To say that you can't is to insult those who have been discriminated for the things they can't change: color, age, gender, disablity.

You can change your color. People do it all the time sitting in the sun, spraying on bronzers, wearing makeup, or even augmenting their pigment surgically. I've also seen it in many main stream movies!

And while you can't change your age, you can certainly try to alter the ways in which most people see your age (your looks). Plastic surgery, botox, wrinkle creams, and many other things are out there for you to try.

You can also change your gender. You don't even have to go to Sweden anymore to do it.

Heck, we even live in a time when there have been great advances to help people overcome certain disabilites.

So, lets bring back the good old days and start hatin' on everyone!

[memebag]

i thought so.....please point them out so i can go protest.

banks have been lenient for several yrs now, giving out loans without putting any money down. this practice has cost them dearly and well, they are returning to more secure lending practices.

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

No.

How will that happen? What makes the ability to fire someone for being gay so important that our free will depends on it?