Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

We support equality except at work!Follow

#102 Nov 11 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I thought it had been explained a number of times that discrimination against felons, alcoholics, and drug addicts causes great risk to the financial viability of a company and are therefore considered justifiable discrimination, while discrimination against race, sex, creed, sexual orientation is not a risk towards the financial viability of a company and therefore is not justifiable discrimination.


And if those were the only ones I'd mentioned, you'd have a point. What about discrimination based on an applicants height, or hair color, or color of their shirt, or any of a number of factors which a potential employer might use to decide to hire person A instead of person B?

There's actually decent statistics showing that short people as a group suffer far more economic disadvantage relative to tall people than homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. So why not add height to the list of things we can't discriminate against when hiring? It's not just about whether hiring someone will hurt someone's business. The point is that we should allow the employer the freedom to spend his money (in the form of hiring people) in whatever way he wants and only place limits on what criteria he can use to make those choices to those which are absolutely necessary to prevent some gross harm to a whole group.


Ok. You asked someone to explain where they thought the line of demarcation is when deciding what is acceptable discrimination and what isn't. I (and many others) answered you.


gbaji wrote:
And there just isn't much evidence that homosexuals as a group are being harmed by the absence of special protections. Since this is the question at hand, that would seem to be relevant, right?


Doing a simple Google search, I find that this statement is false. Even if it were true, however, there are no protections currently in place to keep people from discriminating based on sexual preference or identity, and therefore that should be corrected.
#103 Nov 12 2013 at 2:55 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I would like to start off to say that I generally oppose hiring discrimination based on sexuality except for a few scenarios, i.e. churches and non co-ed military. I do not support not hiring someone in retail, food, etc., but for the love of all holy, you people need to stop this constant comparison with homosexuality to being black. There are some valid comparisons that can be made, but they aren't ever made. You all compare a sexuality with a skin color then get offended when comparing a sexuality with a sexuality.

I don't fully agree with Gbaji, but these comments are only supporting his point that you all are merely picking and choosing and not being consistent. Even with the legal discrimination against sexuality, a homosexual white person is more likely to get hired than a black person. I recently saw a study that white men with a criminal record are more likely to get hired than a black person with no record. As always, I take everything with a grain a salt, but I wouldn't be surprised on the validity.

Belkira wrote:
Right. Except a @#%^phile is a felon and a danger to small children, while a black lady and a homosexual are not.


1. We decide to make them a felon, just as we can make sodomy a felon.
2. You are purely focusing on the 5 and 7 year olds and not the 14 and 15 year olds who are already having sex. As before, there is absolutely no difference between two 14 year olds having sex and a 14 and 35 year old other than social acceptance.

lolgaxe wrote:
Constitution: Negotiable Except When I Don't Agree.

This is what I've been saying all along. The constitution has lost its value throughout time. Everything you support is "constitutional" while everything you disagree with is "unconstitutional".



Edited, Nov 12th 2013 11:04am by Almalieque
#104 Nov 12 2013 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Okay, I admit I was wondering how long it would be before he'd bring up his desire to watch women on the toilet. Only three pages.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 Nov 12 2013 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I think the point would be homosexuality is something you are. As a general statement people should not be able to discriminate against others due to something they do not have control over.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#106 Nov 12 2013 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
But what if you ARE a blonde left handed pedophile rapist?! Why can't they be teachers?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Nov 12 2013 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Given that ENDA is about giving homosexuals equal protection as blacks, Hispanics, women, Jewish people, disabled people, etc comparing them to those groups is 100% appropriate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Nov 12 2013 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
If we can get 33 states out of the 50 to be A-Ok with gay marriage, we could force a constitutional amendment.

16/50 is almost halfway there!
#109 Nov 12 2013 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not likely to happen any time soon. In the late 90's and early 2000's, a number of states passed constitutional bans on SSM and the mechanics for lifting those bans make it difficult even with strict majority support. If you have 60% of your population in favor of SSM but you have a ban that requires 75% in a referendum to lift it, it's going to take some doing. Nevada is taking the first steps towards lifting their constitutional ban but the process will take years.

This is, by the way, the reason why arguments like "Yeah but X many states have banned it so the people must not want it" aren't especially compelling. What the people of a state wanted in 1998 and what they want in 2013 can be two very different things.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Nov 12 2013 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Belkira wrote:
Ok. You asked someone to explain where they thought the line of demarcation is when deciding what is acceptable discrimination and what isn't. I (and many others) answered you.
What I'd like to see is the rationale behind why we should be hiring people on some of these crazy non-performance, non-criminal, non-BFOQ based metrics to judge people anyway. Or is "freedom" the only excuse they have for making poor business decisions?

Belkira wrote:
Doing a simple Google search, I find that this statement is false. Even if it were true, however, there are no protections currently in place to keep people from discriminating based on sexual preference or identity, and therefore that should be corrected.
Or he could simply read the paper I linked. I went out of my way to find one that wasn't published by a left wing group, and was in a very reputable journal no less.

Talk about feeling unappreciated. Smiley: glare

Jophiel wrote:
This is, by the way, the reason why arguments like "Yeah but X many states have banned it so the people must not want it" aren't especially compelling. What the people of a state wanted in 1998 and what they want in 2013 can be two very different things.
Then comes the complaining about how government doesn't work, and the cycle continues. Smiley: wink

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 8:43am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#111 Nov 12 2013 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Just imagine what the mood of the country must have been to even have put into place things like the DOMA and DADT. They seem so barbaric and discriminatory now.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#112 Nov 12 2013 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
DADT was considered a step forward at the time. It was intended to end the witch-hunting of finding lurking homos in the military and replace it with "so long as you don't make waves, we're cool". Certainly not as good as allowing open acceptance but as good as you were going to get in the mid 1990s.

DOMA was Congress flipping out over Hawaii proposing allowing SSM back in the mid-90's. They wanted to ensure that Hawaii's heathen ****-marriages wouldn't be accepted nationally. As it turned out, the SSM effort in Hawaii failed anyway but the fear of it led to the spate of state SSM bans in the late 90's and early 2000's.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Nov 12 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's actually decent statistics showing that short people as a group suffer far more economic disadvantage relative to tall people than homosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

Nope.


Yup

Quote:
Height was found to be more important than gender in determining income (though that claim is debatable, depending on how you analyze the gender salary gap) and its significance doesn't decline with age.


Article doesn't specifically mention sexual orientation, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that gender wage gap is greater than orientation wage gap. If I'm wrong on this, by all means show me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Nov 12 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira wrote:
Ok. You asked someone to explain where they thought the line of demarcation is when deciding what is acceptable discrimination and what isn't. I (and many others) answered you.


Except you didn't.. A line of demarcation means that X is just on one side and Y just on the other, such that there's nothing in between them except that line. You pointed at some case far far far to one side of the line. Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right? Therefore, if you are trying to define that line you need to look at those things and tell me what things are on which side and why.

It's like I'm asking you where the border between the US and Mexico is, and you're telling me that Denver is in the US and Mexico City is in Mexico. That's great and all, but it doesn't tell me where the border is. You need to show me which things are just on one side or the other of that line. Else you are *not* defining the line at all.

Quote:
Doing a simple Google search, I find that this statement is false. Even if it were true, however, there are no protections currently in place to keep people from discriminating based on sexual preference or identity, and therefore that should be corrected.


Why? There is a nearly infinite set of things an employer can discriminate against when making decisions regarding employees. We have a very very small list of things that they are not allowed to discriminate based on. You need to make the case as to why this one thing should be added to that small list. And "because it's discrimination" isn't a good answer. And "because there's no protection against that discrimination" is circular, since you're arguing for adding that protection. There's no protection against height discrimination either, right? So that's not sufficient argument by itself.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 3:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Nov 12 2013 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Article doesn't specifically mention sexual orientation, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that gender wage gap is greater than orientation wage gap. If I'm wrong on this, by all means show me.
I did a quick Google, just for curiosity sake. Most of the numbers I was able to skim across quickly put the "orientation" gap at about 10% - 20% depending on the study. Compared to the gender pay gap which seems to sit at right around 20%.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#116 Nov 12 2013 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right?
Why are you assuming that?

I mean, looking back I'm having trouble finding where you came to the conclusion that people were okay with discrimination based on height or hairstyle, etc. Maybe you should try viewing it as there being a small list of things people feel are acceptable discrimination and everything else is "wrong" whether it's illegal or not at this point.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 3:20pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#117 Nov 12 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right?
Why are you assuming that?


Am I wrong? You think that an employer is less justified to refuse to hire someone who has a drug problem than someone who has blond hair? If I'm wrong with that assumption then by all means correct me. But I don't think I'm wrong.

Quote:
I mean, looking back I'm having trouble finding where you came to the conclusion that people were okay with discrimination based on height or hairstyle, etc.


But they're ok with discrimination based on drug addiction? Which kinda means my assumption is correct, right? Which is it?


The secondary point to this is that we don't have any civil rights protections against discrimination based on height or hairstyle. Yet, despite this lack of protections in our laws, no one is demanding that we change our laws to correct for that lack. My question is why we have a massive movement to add the protection for one case, but not those others? So much so that anyone who doesn't agree is denigrated and called names for failing to join in said movement. I don't think it's wrong of me to point out this inconsistency and ask the quite obvious question: "Why this one, and not those others?".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Nov 12 2013 at 5:26 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Okay, I admit I was wondering how long it would be before he'd bring up his desire to watch women on the toilet. Only three pages.


Not only do I have no desire to see that, I did not insinuate it either. You're trying to take a legitimate argument to reduce fraud, waste and abuse on unnecessary segregation into a fetish in order to downplay its legitimacy.

Jophiel wrote:
Given that ENDA is about giving homosexuals equal protection as blacks, Hispanics, women, Jewish people, disabled people, etc comparing them to those groups is 100% appropriate.

Having not read ENDA, I would argue that is a terrible argument. How about giving homosexuals equal protection as HUMANS. It then becomes all inclusive. Simply cherry picking certain groups not only creates inaccuracy, but exclusion, which is why we continue to have these same arguments throughout time with different groups. Ok, ok, ok... women can work. ok, ok, ok, black people can work... gosh! ok, ok, ok, homosexual people can work.. Again, wasting people's time and causing people to unnecessarily suffer while people decide to get off their fourth point of contact.

No matter how much you want to disagree, discrimination against someone's sex is not the same as discrimination against someone's skin color which is not the same as discriminating against someone's sexuality which is not the same as discriminating against someone's height and weight, so forth and so on. There are situations where it is acceptable to discriminate against one thing and not another. Likewise, there are scenarios where discrimination against any is unacceptable.
#119 Nov 12 2013 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Ok. You asked someone to explain where they thought the line of demarcation is when deciding what is acceptable discrimination and what isn't. I (and many others) answered you.


Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right? Therefore, if you are trying to define that line you need to look at those things and tell me what things are on which side and why.


Things on the wrong side of the line: Felony charges found on a background check. Alcoholism found on a background check. Drug abuse found on a background check.

I have no idea how I can be more clear, honestly.

gbaji wrote:
Why? There is a nearly infinite set of things an employer can discriminate against when making decisions regarding employees. We have a very very small list of things that they are not allowed to discriminate based on. You need to make the case as to why this one thing should be added to that small list. And "because it's discrimination" isn't a good answer. And "because there's no protection against that discrimination" is circular, since you're arguing for adding that protection. There's no protection against height discrimination either, right? So that's not sufficient argument by itself.


Because it's a problem, and it's the wrong type of discrimination that can be allowed.

That's my answer. If you don't like it, too bad. That's your problem.

ETA: If your argument for why this law shouldn't be passed is, "But they don't include height and hairstyle! You can't do one and not all!" then you are a complete moron and really not worth my time.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 5:30pm by Belkira
#120 Nov 12 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right?
Why are you assuming that?
Am I wrong? You think that an employer is less justified to refuse to hire someone who has a drug problem than someone who has blond hair? If I'm wrong with that assumption then by all means correct me. But I don't think I'm wrong.
I think there's more justification in refusing to hire someone with a current criminal record, than refusing to hire someone with blond hair.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
I mean, looking back I'm having trouble finding where you came to the conclusion that people were okay with discrimination based on height or hairstyle, etc.
But they're ok with discrimination based on drug addiction? Which kinda means my assumption is correct, right? Which is it?
Okay, I'm not following this. You may have to spell this one out for me.



gbaji wrote:
The secondary point to this is that we don't have any civil rights protections against discrimination based on height or hairstyle. Yet, despite this lack of protections in our laws, no one is demanding that we change our laws to correct for that lack. My question is why we have a massive movement to add the protection for one case, but not those others? So much so that anyone who doesn't agree is denigrated and called names for failing to join in said movement. I don't think it's wrong of me to point out this inconsistency and ask the quite obvious question: "Why this one, and not those others?".
You're right, they've obviously dropped the ball, going at this piecemeal isn't working. Perhaps we should just ban all but a very short list of approved performance related criteria?

If you want to know where my gray area is, maybe something said at a job interview that's not directly performance-related, but is strongly suggestive thereof.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 3:56pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#121 Nov 12 2013 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No matter how much you want to disagree, discrimination against someone's sex is not the same as discrimination against someone's skin color which is not the same as discriminating against someone's sexuality which is not the same as discriminating against someone's height and weight, so forth and so on.

Identical? No. Analogous? Yes.

Also:
Quote:
The Hawaii state Senate "overwhelmingly approved a marriage equity bill today, sending the measure to Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) who has vowed to sign it and make Hawaii the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage," the Honolulu Star Advertiser reports.

Woohoo!

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 6:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Nov 12 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
Isn't it the 16th state after Illinois...?
#123 Nov 12 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Assuming we agree that things like height, hairstyle, and clothing styles are less obviously things you can discriminate based on than drug addiction and felon status, then those things should be closer to the line, right? Therefore, if you are trying to define that line you need to look at those things and tell me what things are on which side and why.


Things on the wrong side of the line: Felony charges found on a background check. Alcoholism found on a background check. Drug abuse found on a background check.


And the wrong height, weight, hair style/color, accent, etc, right? Those are all on the "wrong side" of the line because we don't protect people from being discriminated against on any of those basis.

Quote:
I have no idea how I can be more clear, honestly.


Neither do I. I'm making what I thought was a very obvious and clear point that if there's no legal protection against discrimination based on failing a drug test *and* no legal protection against discrimination based on height (or any of those other things), then both of those are on the same side of the line. Both sets of things fall under the same category of "things not protected against discrimination".

Arguing that sexual orientation should be on the other side of the line (the protected side) because sexual orientation isn't like drug addiction is a poor argument because those other things are not like drug addiction either, yet we allow them to remain on the non protected side. You're cherry picking the weakest counter case and ignoring the strongest. If you think that sexual orientation should be protected, then you need to argue why it's unlike height, or weight, or any of a very long list of things that are not protected, not just unlike drug addiction or felon status.

Because that's where the line of demarcation is.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Why? There is a nearly infinite set of things an employer can discriminate against when making decisions regarding employees. We have a very very small list of things that they are not allowed to discriminate based on. You need to make the case as to why this one thing should be added to that small list. And "because it's discrimination" isn't a good answer. And "because there's no protection against that discrimination" is circular, since you're arguing for adding that protection. There's no protection against height discrimination either, right? So that's not sufficient argument by itself.


Because it's a problem, and it's the wrong type of discrimination that can be allowed.


Why is it a problem? Why is is the wrong type of discrimination? Specifically, why is this a problem but *not* any of those other things? If you can't answer that question, then you don't have any legitimate argument at all. You're just repeating a position, but failing to support it.

Quote:
That's my answer. If you don't like it, too bad. That's your problem.


No. Actually, I think it's your problem. Smiley: nod

Quote:
ETA: If your argument for why this law shouldn't be passed is, "But they don't include height and hairstyle! You can't do one and not all!" then you are a complete moron and really not worth my time.


I'm not saying you can't do one and not all. I'm saying that you you want us to do one but not the others, then you have to actually make an argument as to why one should be protected, but not the others. And you (nor anyone else here) has done that.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 5:21pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Nov 12 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I'm not saying you can't do one and not all. I'm saying that you you want us to do one but not the others, then you have to actually make an argument as to why one should be protected, but not the others. And you (nor anyone else here) has done that.


That's idiotic. I never said, "I want employment discrimination directed against sexual orientation to be illegal but not the others." I think the only discrimination that should be legal when hiring is felony charges, drug abuse, and alcoholism. None of the other things you mentioned should be reasons to legally discriminate against someone for a job.

Not only that, but the "If you want this but you aren't fighting for the others, then tell me why it's different" argument is ridiculous. It makes no sense whatsoever.
#125 Nov 12 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
Isn't it the 16th state after Illinois...?

Illinois hasn't signed theirs yet. Don't ask me why not since Quinn said he would; maybe he's waiting for the legislative session to end or something. Or maybe he and Gov. Abercrombie from Hawaii are going to jointly sign them and then get gay married via Skype.

Edit: Gov. Quinn said he wasn't going to sign any bills until the state assembly passed a solution to the state pension crisis. My assumption is that Quinn will wait for the legislative session to end and then sign this bill saying that the assembly wasn't going to pass a pension bill this session now anyway and it would be cruel to let this SSM bill hang as a result.

Edited, Nov 12th 2013 7:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Nov 12 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Isn't it the 16th state after Illinois...?

Illinois hasn't signed theirs yet. Don't ask me why not since Quinn said he would; maybe he's waiting for the legislative session to end or something. Or maybe he and Gov. Abercrombie from Hawaii are going to jointly sign them and then get gay married via Skype.
I say go for it, would be mildly interesting.

Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 308 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (308)