Posted by
Playful Walrus on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:31:08 PM
Michael McGough at the LATimes.com opinion blog
apparently cites the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a reason to support ENDA for "civilian" employers. So much for slippery slopes not existing. Of course, if ENDA had passed first, it would have been cited as a reason to repeal DADT.
Given changing attitudes toward homosexuality, this would seem to be a no-brainer.
Nope, no slippery slopes here.
Even opponents of same-sex marriage oppose discrimination. Or do they?
Not all discrimination. After all, all laws discriminate. I oppose
government discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, like, say, giving preference to hiring one person over another to be a firefighter because of the person's skin color. I also oppose private employers using such discrimination. But the latter should no longer be illegal. I can boycott a private employer. I can't boycott the government.
"Mitchell Young" March 30, 2011 at 09:38 AM hit the nail on the head:
Private businesses should be able to hire, not hire, or dismiss whomever they want, for pretty much whatever reason.
Amen. It's silly, really. It is perfectly legal for an employer to say "I'm firing you because I don't like you", but not for them to say, "I'm firing you because I don't like you
because you are black."
As it is, 'employment discrimination' law sees to only operate to the benefit of 'protected' groups. Take construction sites that are 100% 'Latino' , 100% immigrant; it is likely that discrimination and ethnic networks are operating to keep whites, blacks, and 'old stock' Latinos out of those jobs, yet you won't see the USDOJ investigating.
Hmmmm.
Under this proposed legislation, it is likely that industries and businesses that are disproportionately gay and 'gay-friendly' will remain so (see, for example, the director of the California Theatre who was forced out of his job for the temerity of making a contribution to pro-Prop 8 causes. On the other hand orthodox (small 'O') Christian and Jewish business owners would be forced to employ those who openly flaunt their values.
Yes. The goal here is ultimately to force everyone to advocate homosexual behavior, crossdressing, and pretending that a man who has had his genitals purposely mutilated is somehow now a woman.
"Stacey" March 30, 2011 at 10:50 AM was very telling:
This comment board needs more common sense average people to participate. As it is, it seems overrun by wingnut, conservative biggots with nothing better to do with their time. Discrimination regardless of the group it is directed at is just a bad idea whose time has come and gone.
"Joe" March 30, 2011 at 12:03 PM calls her(?) on it:
Nice one Stacey. I was trying to figure out a way to highlight the hypocrisy of the left-wing nuts and liberal bigots and then you posted your comment.
As does “Mitchell Young” March 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM:
Calling people 'wingnut' and 'bigot' is, well, simply calling people names.
Now saying 'discrimination is bad' is sort of an argument, but one easily shot down. Should PETA be forced to hire an 'out and proud' meat eater? Should the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be forced continue employing a person who discovered a love of bullfighting and displayed pictures of his favorite matadors on his work desk?
"Natalie Russell" March 30, 2011 at 01:13 PM:
As a manager of a business unit, the company - and myself - do not discriminate against (or for) anyone.
You probably do, just not in a way that you are thinking as you write words like that.
We are interested in finding the right people to perform particular job functions, fit with our company culture, and can grow with our business.
Great! That does involve discrimination, though.
It is my personal experience and opinion that same-sex marriages, sexual orientation and gender identity have nothing to do with our hiring practices, the same as race, religious choice, or educational background.
That's your organization. It isn't true for all organizations.
A business that discriminates against people due to same-sex marriages, sexual orientation, or gender identity, is a business that by choice removes some of its top employment applicants.
Let's grant that this is true. Who suffers? The discriminating business! Who benefits? The homosexual person who is instead hired where he or she is appreciated and wanted. And the business that hires them benefits.
See for example:
I often find it difficult to find the right applicants, so from my point of view, reducing the field of applicants is not a good business decision to make.
And…
Excluding employment applicants based upon sexual orientation or gender identity is just not a good business decision to make for any business.
Then ENDA doesn't need to apply to non-government employers, does it? This is something the market will take care of, right? The "bigots" will go out of business as the LGBT-cheering businesses thrive, right?
The rationale for ENDA isn't hard to understand. 1) It is illegal for employers to discriminate in most cases based on someone's inborn traits or First Amendment rights; 2) Being "gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered" (LGBT) is an inborn trait, or at the least freedom of expression. Therefore, it should be illegal for employers to discriminate against someone for being LGBT.
However, I don’t think #1 should be true any longer. Pseudosexual behavior or bad disguises aren't skin color, though. Behavior is what is at stake here. Homosexual behavior needs to be treated distinctly from whether or not a man should be able to come to work in a dress and high heels. Regardless of internal feelings, both are behavior choices the person makes. I also believe that religious practice is a choice, and I do believe that non-government employers, as a matter of freedom of association and property rights, should be able to discriminate against me based on my religion. But unlike homosexual behavior, religion is specifically cited in the First Amendment.