The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Famine]

discrimination in the workplace is illegal in the uk and america land of the free it's legal to fire someone based on their sexuality in 29 states

Yes. In the UK we don't have the freedom to hire and fire who we see fit that they have in many US states.

 

[SniperRed3]

So now discrimination is ok. I doubt you'd be saying that if you actually experienced it yourself

 

[Danoff]

So now discrimination is ok. I doubt you'd be saying that if you actually experienced it yourself

Depends on what you mean by "ok" and who is doing it. If you mean that private discrimination is the individual's right, then yes it's "ok". If you meant that government discrimination in law is moral, no it's not "ok". If you mean that private discrimination is a good idea, then no it's not "ok".

 

[Famine]

So now discrimination is ok.

"Now"? No, it's always been "okay"*. Unless you ascribe to the point of view that people cannot be allowed to hold their own counsel, which is phenomenally anti-freedom. And wrong.

It's wrong for your representatives to do it - government may not discriminate - but citizens? Sure, they can be as deeply unpleasant as they like. Besides, if someone you knew was an horrific homophobe/racist/bigot, wouldn't you like to know about it so you could stop associating with them?

I doubt you'd be saying that if you actually experienced it yourself

I have. I mean, it should be blindingly obvious that I have - I'm a person.

You're treading very well-worn ground, by the way.

*Where "okay" means something they should be allowed free rein to do

 

[VindictiveScrub]

It should be legal to fire (or hire) someone for any reason you choose, including religion, gender, race, sexuality, height, weight, hair colour, beardedness, dress sense... anything.

Ah, I did, and I apologize . I also agree. It should be legal to hire or fire whomever a business chooses, but here in the U.S. it's not like that at all. That applies almost exclusively to homosexuals, at least as far as why someone can be fired. Which is where my previous post's intentions lie, why is it deemed okay in the states for businesses to judge employment based on sexual orientation, but not religion, race, sex (not gender, because that falls into sexual orientation here as well), disability, etc.?

 

[Danoff]

Ah, I did, and I apologize . I also agree. It should be legal to hire or fire whomever a business chooses, but here in the U.S. it's not like that at all. That applies almost exclusively to homosexuals, at least as far as why someone can be fired. Which is where my previous post's intentions lie, why is it deemed okay in the states for businesses to judge employment based on sexual orientation, but not religion, race, sex (not gender, because that falls into sexual orientation here as well), disability, etc.?

Because government.

The fix is not to make it illegal to fire someone for being gay though.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I think people should be hired/fired based on their ability to do a job. Which is why I disagree with our anti-discrimination laws, but also disagree with allowing people to fire/not hire someone for any reason they want.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

I think people should be hired/fired based on their ability to do a job. Which is why I disagree with our anti-discrimination laws, but also disagree with allowing people to fire/not hire someone for any reason they want.

It's a tricky case, as any business excluding anyone or any group in particular is going to get plenty of backlash thrown its way, which I believe is what government is trying to protect, but it's not doing it properly. I don't know how it should be handled, but if the owners of the mom and pop shop down the road don't like discovering that one of their employees goes against one of their beliefs, and thus fires said employee, I hardly see how the government should care or play a part. It's down to the consumer to choose whether or not he or she wants to shop there based on the ownership's beliefs and actions.

At the same time though, it needs to be equal across all variables. Whether legal to hire/fire or illegal. Unless someone is breaking the law in another manner, which being homosexual does not break the law, than I don't see valid reasoning to say it's legal to fire homosexuals for being homosexual but not legal to fire someone for just about everything else. It's segregation, and it's welcoming harassment and bullying within the workplace.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Scientists just found the gene that makes us gay or straight

EDIT: The headline is a slight clickbait.
But it's still an interesting read.

 

[Famine]

I think people should be hired/fired based on their ability to do a job.

Yep.

Which is why I disagree with our anti-discrimination laws

Yep - though government (and public officials) must be held accountable to discrimination*.

but also disagree with allowing people to fire/not hire someone for any reason they want.

Mmmyymymmanmmmnno.

There's a whole host of issues - I mean the fact it's unworkable to introduce one factor you're not allowed to discriminate against without immediately discriminating against all the other factors you don't include is a big one but it ultimately boils down to the fact that you, as a private citizen, can pay whomever you wish to do a job for you, whether it's mowing your lawn or fixing the boiler or you're the CEO of a multinational corporation with tens of thousands of employees.

It ought to be your prerogative to pay whom you wish regardless of how good at the job they are. Perhaps you were raped by a clown as a child and men with large and reddened noses and big feet give you flashbacks. Or perhaps you're just a nasty, small-minded bigot who hates black people - or perhaps the department you're hiring for are and putting a black guy in their office harms their productivity (and makes him really unhappy at work). It doesn't really matter what makes you uncomfortable about someone, you should be free to hire or fire them without any reference to their ability to do the job.

Of course you'd be a catastrophic moron to fire someone who's great at their job just because they're white or straight or male or whatever and your business would soon go under as people learn of your discriminatory policies - the minority bigot market isn't enough to keep a business afloat - but we're supposed to allow people to be morons.

*A friend recently had an induction at an NHS trust she started working for. It is NHS policy that employees must not discriminate against others based on their beliefs about anthropogenic climate change and the environment. Yes. Really.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

*A friend recently had an induction at an NHS trust she started working for. It is NHS policy that employees must not discriminate against others based on their beliefs about anthropogenic climate change and the environment. Yes. Really.

What heated, stapler throwing argument prompted that?

 

[Azure Flare]

If I were to be fired based on my sexual orientation, I would look the person who fired me straight in the face and say "Well, 🤬 you then.", and just walk out of the building.

 

[Moglet]

I think people should be hired/fired based on their ability to do a job.

At my old workplace we had an issue with an employee who kept leaving work whenever he liked, never put any effort in, failed to show up multiple times and even registered for payday loans with the workplace address as his own. He was a very shady gambling addicted moron. But it took an age to fire him since he was the only black employee in the building, and management had to walk on egg shells to avoid coming over as racist.

He eventually was fired after trying to fight his manager, but even then he took them to court over it. He lost.

The point is that's a whole load of unnecessary stress that the entire workforce had to endure and a huge amount of money lost to his lack of work and in court costs, simply because he kept threatening to pull the race card. What you said it perfect; people should be hired/fired based on their ability to do the job. Unfortunately it's never as simple as that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

At my old workplace we had an issue with an employee who kept leaving work whenever he liked, never put any effort in, failed to show up multiple times and even registered for payday loans with the workplace address as his own. He was a very shady gambling addicted moron. But it took an age to fire him since he was the only black employee in the building, and management had to walk on egg shells to avoid coming over as racist.

He eventually was fired after trying to fight his manager, but even then he took them to court over it. He lost.

The point is that's a whole load of unnecessary stress that the entire workforce had to endure and a huge amount of money lost to his lack of work and in court costs, simply because he kept threatening to pull the race card. What you said it perfect; people should be hired/fired based on their ability to do the job. Unfortunately it's never as simple as that.

Having seen similar situations I'd present another side to that;

My feeling is that if that employee hadn't been black they'd have played a different card... people like that will always find a way to cling on and milk the system. The system does have to look with diligence and seriousness into genuine claims of any discrimination but some people abuse this by making false claims or presenting false situations in attempts to further their own interests. Where the protection for business is lacking (in the UK at least) is that it's difficult to add that information to an ex-employee's CV and for the next employer to know both sides of a story.

 

[ledhed]

In my state unless you have a government job not involving mail , good luck trying to fire anyone , But private sector can fire anyone at anytime and needs no cause . Only if they take federal or state or city contracts are there even minor issues with fire or hire .

 

[sammy neuman]

To address the title of this thread; I think that homosexuality is neither of the above. I consider sexuality to be a spectrum, not an either/or thing, and we are all somewhere on that spectral line, not grouped into people/not quite people. The serious problem is that it exposes how easy it is to justify discrimination (again!) based upon a perceived difference.
I don't think it's a 'lifestyle' choice. I consider lifestyle to be something like deciding to wear chains-and-leather or a conservative suit, what kind of car, party-animal or stay-at-home, that sort of thing.
Sorting and categorizing people gets too confusing for me, it's easier to just think of everyone as 'doing what people do'.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Yep.Yep - though government (and public officials) must be held accountable to discrimination*.Mmmyymymmanmmmnno.

There's a whole host of issues - I mean the fact it's unworkable to introduce one factor you're not allowed to discriminate against without immediately discriminating against all the other factors you don't include is a big one but it ultimately boils down to the fact that you, as a private citizen, can pay whomever you wish to do a job for you, whether it's mowing your lawn or fixing the boiler or you're the CEO of a multinational corporation with tens of thousands of employees.

It ought to be your prerogative to pay whom you wish regardless of how good at the job they are. Perhaps you were raped by a clown as a child and men with large and reddened noses and big feet give you flashbacks. Or perhaps you're just a nasty, small-minded bigot who hates black people - or perhaps the department you're hiring for are and putting a black guy in their office harms their productivity (and makes him really unhappy at work). It doesn't really matter what makes you uncomfortable about someone, you should be free to hire or fire them without any reference to their ability to do the job.
Of course you'd be a catastrophic moron to fire someone who's great at their job just because they're white or straight or male or whatever and your business would soon go under as people learn of your discriminatory policies - the minority bigot market isn't enough to keep a business afloat - but we're supposed to allow people to be morons.

*A friend recently had an induction at an NHS trust she started working for. It is NHS policy that employees must not discriminate against others based on their beliefs about anthropogenic climate change and the environment. Yes. Really.

You're allowed to have moronic views, but my main disagreement with firing/hiring (mostly firing tbh because you can't really prove why you weren't hired) people for any reason, is that your moronic views shouldn't be allowed to affect other people (or any opinion for that matter). And firing someone, because they disagree with your moronic views is exactly what I think we should avoid, because a lot of people rely on their jobs, and really can't afford to lose them.

Also, I don't think your view that businesses would go under because they had discriminatory policies is too realistic. If a business near me fired someone because they said they thought carrots tasted funny, or that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, something like that, chances are I wouldn't hear about it, I don't generally keep tabs on how all the local businesses are run, and I doubt many other people do either. But I could be wrong on that.

 

[FoolKiller]

If a business near me fired someone because they said they thought carrots tasted funny, or that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, something like that, chances are I wouldn't hear about it, I don't generally keep tabs on how all the local businesses are run, and I doubt many other people do either. But I could be wrong on that.

You guys need to sac up a bit more. Around here a restaurant or store simply not allowing breastfeeding leads to sit ins of breastfeeding mothers. The slight hint of racism and 50 people of that race (with the exception of white) are standing out front within a day.

And in this age of social media you think it would go unnoticed? I know a woman who lost a dog and found it at an animal shelter two weeks later. They wouldn't let her have it because they claimed she was a bad owner since it took her two weeks to find them. Four days of Facebook outrage later, with many others sharing their negative experiences at that shelter, and a member of the board called her to tell her she can get her dog back if she calls off the Facebook attacks. She never made a single post on Facebook. The outrage was started by her coworkers when they found out why she was upset.

A comedian can't make a joke, on stage, as part of a comedy act without having his career effectively destroyed. Just ask Michael Richards how his career has been the last few years.

You really think you need to go around looking to see how a business works to know if you oppose their practices?

But to bring this 100% within the point of the thread: Chick-Fil-A's owner, who closes his restaurants on Sundays for religious reasons, honestly answered an interview question regarding his views on gay marriage. Let's see, religious to the point of losing income to recognize his beliefs. Gee, I wonder what his answer will be. Oh look, there is a whole Website dedicated to boycotting the business, still going two years later. That incident involved no discrimination in hiring or serving customers, just a guy being honest about his personal opinion.

And let's not forget Donald Sterling, who was forced to sell his NBA team for racial comments made in private and recorded by his girlfriend.

Oh, and let's not forget the mediocre viewing Ender's Game got in theaters because the author of the book gave an honest answer in an interview.

And then there's the Duck Dynasty guy, again just giving an honest answer in an interview, and their much lower ratings this season.



Let's get real. Our world is full of people who have their professional careers affected or destroyed, sometimes just because they admit their personal views, but never act on them in their business dealings.

Will they be completely out of business? No, because people who agree with them, or don't care, will still go there. But they will lose a good amount of business.

 

[BobK]

@FoolKiller, while I completely agree with your post, it does work both ways. Yes a business can refuse the custom of anybody it chooses for any reason (okay not in actuality but ideally they should) but by the same token a customer can refuse to patronize any business they like for any reason including that they don't like the personal opinions of the business owner.

Which has little to do with the Donald Sterling situation, however.

 

[Famine]

by the same token a customer can refuse to patronize any business they like for any reason including that they don't like the personal opinions of the business owner

Another fine argument to allow business owners to exhibit their bigotry - I wouldn't want to buy jack squat from a racist or homophobe, and it's quite difficult for me to determine who they are when they're not allowed to enact racist and homophobic policies.

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKiller, while I completely agree with your post, it does work both ways. Yes a business can refuse the custom of anybody it chooses for any reason (okay not in actuality but ideally they should) but by the same token a customer can refuse to patronize any business they like for any reason including that they don't like the personal opinions of the business owner.

Oh definitely. I was just addressing the notion that the customer would lack the information necessary to take such action toward a business that has practices, or even personal opinions, that they disagree with. That is completely untrue, especially today.

The Internet has allowed us to become self regulators of our society.

 

[sammy neuman]

@FoolKiller
If you take your username seriously, you will not run out of things to do. I'm pretty sure that we are not qualified to regulate ourselves. I know I have prejudices, and I can't seem to get rid of them as I suspect some are survival mechanisms hard-wired in. Knowing that I have them, I have to remember that equal=equal, and everyone is an us, not a them. But I still have to think about it, and I hope I'm getting better at it. I find that it is all too easy to champion free-speech as long as I'm talking, or I agree with what is said. But I have to remember e=e when the American Nazi Party is talking.
I think that mob-psychology is active in many situations that we don't recognize as such, and instant communication can encourage its formation...and I fear mob rule. While an outraged public can be a good thing, it can also lead to lynching and witch-burning. Stirling got thrown under the bus due to public pressure. The other owners could recognize a lynch-mob when they saw one, and suspected that their own futures were going to draw a large vacuum if they didn't do something. If he was guilty of discrimination in his business practices, that is illegal, and there are legal and civil remedies. It does not matter that he might hold loathsome ideas, as long as he does not put them into practice.

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKillerI'm pretty sure that we are not qualified to regulate ourselves.

And since government is just a group of people like us, neither are they. In fact, in many cases where expertise is necessary to even understand the thing they are regulating the government has no one with that expertise and will even ignore the experts they bring in. If our choices are us or the government, I think I am more qualified to regulate myself.

I know I have prejudices, and I can't seem to get rid of them as I suspect some are survival mechanisms hard-wired in. Knowing that I have them, I have to remember that equal=equal, and everyone is an us, not a them. But I still have to think about it, and I hope I'm getting better at it. I find that it is all too easy to champion free-speech as long as I'm talking, or I agree with what is said. But I have to remember e=e when the American Nazi Party is talking.

You live here. The government suffers from all the same issues you do. We see it everyday. What makes them better at regulating us than you are yourself? I live in a state that amended their constitution to ban gay marriage. The governor has a lawsuit challenging the federal government on my state having to recognize gay marriages from other states. Who is the better regulator of me, them or me?

In fact, that brings in a new issue, the third regulating party, state government, and it goes even lower to county and city levels. They almost never agree. So which level of regulators is better; big federal government down every level to individual responsibility?

I think that mob-psychology is active in many situations that we don't recognize as such, and instant communication can encourage its formation...and I fear mob rule.

So did the British. It's what led them to a war with their colonies.

I won't pretend that other issues come about. They do. But the very issue we are talking about has a history of examples of how government is no better.

The difference between self-regulating and government regulating is that when it goes bad under less government no one gets to cop out with, "I was just following orders/the law." Doing the right thing is just you doing what you think is right instead of civil disobedience.

Besides, we have mob rule now, just as every example I listed proves. The only difference is that it is in addition to where government thinks their rules should apply.

 

[sammy neuman]

To paraphrase a certain wizard, 'I dug too deep...'.
My thoughts boil down to; what is legal for me is legal for all, and I think that the 'Equal Protection' clause of the US constitution is what will ultimately decide this issue. I love the Bill of Rights, the fact that it irritates everyone at one time or another indicates that it works just the way it was supposed to. I have to remind myself sometimes that my rights end where others' rights begin, and that no right can be unconstrained, or it will trample everything else.
Sometimes I think it would be a good thing if every elective office in the US was held for a term by Libertarians. It would be wild, and probably a disaster (anarchy only works as long as I can't see the smoke from my neighbors chimney, or have no disagreement with them...), but it would definitely reset the baseline.
Thoughts on civil disobedience: Rioting is not civil disobedience. I don't think there is a specific crime labeled 'civil disobedience'. Civil disobedience is the directed non-violent violation of some law or ordinance with the intent of highlighting an injustice by forcing an authority to either remedy the injustice, or haul everyone off to jail, preferably after a little police brutality. When released from jail, do it again. Repeat treatment until either the injustice is remedied, or they don't let me out of jail, at which time I have to decide if a hunger-strike is in order. Before I would choose to engage in civil disobedience, I would have to be sure I am truly prepared. I cannot control the definition of the applicable laws, but I can certainly make sure they are violated. Doing the right thing can have very unpleasant consequences.

 

[sammy neuman]

an addendum: To be sure, civil disobedience is an intended to influence public-opinion, whip up a little mob rule. But then, any form of government other than serious dictatorship (responsible to no one) is some flavor of mob rule. I think I've wandered far enough off-thread.

 

[Danoff]

an addendum: To be sure, civil disobedience is an intended to influence public-opinion, whip up a little mob rule. But then, any form of government other than serious dictatorship (responsible to no one) is some flavor of mob rule. I think I've wandered far enough off-thread.

That's why America is a constitutionally-limited republic rather than a pure democracy. The constitution exists to prevent mob rule.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's why America is a constitutionally-limited republic rather than a pure democracy. The constitution exists to prevent mob rule.

If you remove the negative connotations of the word "mob" (they're not intended historically other than in the Greek definition of ochlocracy) then America is mob-ruled, isn't it? The Constitution is people-upwards rather than G-downwards... so I guess I'd always thought of it as "mob-ruled". That's a question more than a challenge

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2014/05/20/mob-rule-in-america/

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm a bit torn really. I very much love the idea of allowing places of business to discriminate at will, and letting the market do it's sorting. But I wonder about what it was that bought us the possibility of that idea becoming a reality.

50 years ago shops could have had a no gays policy and it may well have gone unchallenged, on and on, until this day if it wasn't for anti-discrimination laws. I'm not convinced that we got to where we are now based on general good will and logic, and I seriously wonder if populations need a good slap in the face and told to "do as I say" every now and then to jolt them out of what's comfortable and accepted.

I see "Liberal" so often used as a pejorative, but I think that people either forget or don't know what our worlds used to be like. I think that too often people underestimate what liberal types "bought" us.

That said, regardless of what got us here I think that at least much of the world is ready to cope with "do as you will, and let us be the judge".

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm a bit torn really. I very much love the idea of allowing places of business to discriminate at will, and letting the market do it's sorting. But I wonder about what it was that bought us the possibility of that idea becoming a reality.

In most instances, people bring up the Jim Crowe era.

While civil rights laws did end Jim Crowe, that argument ignores that fact that it was Jim Crowe laws, not just some social movement. If your business treated black people equally you could get in trouble. Due to the laws at the time, we have no way of knowing what society would have done. I think that looking at more northern states shows that not all of society did or wanted to act that way.

I think the problem that we run into today is that we are getting a rebound effect. We keep talking about it, keep turning every little thing into a huge issue, and feeding the debate. If media reserved the race card for true and clear issues of racism, rather than pulling it out every chance they get, then maybe we will all calm down.

 

[sammy neuman]

@FoolKiller: I certainly agree concerning the rebound effect, but what mechanism do you use as an oscillation damper? Common sense? Have at it.
I also agree concerning the media. The media needs controversy and bad news, otherwise there is nothing to report except the scores, the weather, the traffic, and (Maybe or maybe not) things might be vital but most people would not bother to tune in for. It is however, better than no news at all, there is useful information if I can find it, and there is that pesky first amendment.
Mention of Jim Crowe does illustrate the fact that removing a bad law, or passing another law making something illegal, does not end the offending practice. I firmly believe that too much law and too little law are both equally bad. Too little law and the only right that will prevail is the right of might, economic or physical. Too much law grants government too much license to intrude. History demonstrates over and over that if government has the might, it will assume the right.
Ultimately (and I know this personally), what is required is a change of heart rather than another law.
@Danoff: I agree, but more precisely I would say that the Constitution represents the framers best attempt at providing a form of government that does the least harm and maximizes individual rights, while recognizing that there are limits to those rights.
As Benjamin Franklin was coming out of the hall after they had finally got the constitution signed and prepared for presentation, a lady came up to him and said, "Well Mr. Franklin, what have you given us?" He replied: "A republic Madam, if you can keep it."
They expected, could say required, our (the mob) participation, but also knew something about oscillations.