We support equality except at work!Follow

So we agree. That's what I was saying. Discriminating against someone's hair color is closer to the line between "things we can discriminate against" and "things we can't discriminate against" than discriminating against someone because they are a drug addict. Maybe I just didn't write it clearly enough the first time?

My point when I wrote that was that if we are to argue about where the line between "things we can discriminate against" and "things we can't discriminate against" is, we should be looking at things close to the line, not things far from it in one direction or the other. Hence, it's more relevant (I would argue necessary) to argue that sexual orientation is not like hair color versus arguing that it's not like drug addiction.



I suspect you misunderstood my earlier statement and argument. Let me clarify:

1. I'm saying that discrimination based on height or hairstyle is less "ok" than discrimination based on drug addiction or felon status (I'm assuming we agree on this, right?).

2. Our laws do not protect people against discrimination based on height or hairstyle. Thus, while those things are "less ok" to discriminate against, they still fall on the "ok" side with regard to our current laws (I'm hoping that makes sense). It's not about "people being ok" with something, but our laws being ok with something. Currently, there are no protections against discrimination based on height or hairstyle.

3. This is in contrast to a small list of things which fall on the "not ok" side of the legal discrimination line. These are currently race, sex, and religion. So those things are "not ok", and everything else (including height and hairstyle) are "ok" with regards to discrimination under our laws.

4. The change being proposed here is to add sexual orientation to that small list of things on the "not ok" side of the legal discrimination line.

5. My point is that if you are arguing for adding sexual orientation to that list, you must show that it meets some criteria that distinguishes it from all those things we have on the "ok" side. This includes height and hair style. And since those things are closer to the line than felon status or drug addiction, those are better cases to compare/contrast. It's easy to find all sorts of things that are less ok to discriminate against than drug addiction, but we also don't prohibit discrimination against those things. Thus, if you want to argue the special status of sexual orientation, you need to show how its different than all those other things just on the "ok" side of the line.


I hope to hell that makes sense.




You're free to make that argument, but our system starts with the assumption that we're each free to do anything we want, and then we place a small number of restrictions on that where necessary. What you're proposing is the exact opposite and sorta flies in the face of some pretty basic concepts of a free society. We should have to make the argument for each and every exception, not the other way around. And what I'm asking here is for someone to actually make that argument.

But so far, no one has succeeded in making an argument stronger than "because I think it should be this way". I hope you can agree that that's a pretty weak argument.



/shrug How about letting the employer decide based on whatever criteria he wants to use? It's his money he's spending on potentially hiring that person, right? The alternative is a world where the government sets rules about what you must spend your own money on. Which, sadly, far too many people don't seem to grasp is a "really bad thing"(tm).

Because they're unrelated. The sole question related to ENDA is: "Should an employer be allowed to discriminate against an (potential) employee based purely on their sexuality or gender identity?"

That's it. Nothing about height or accent. Hell, nothing about race or gender. Should an employer be allowed to discriminate against an (potential) employee based purely on their sexuality or gender identity? Yes or no? If "no" then you should support ENDA. If yes, then just plainly say "Yes, I think employers should be allowed to discriminate against an (potential) employee based purely on their sexuality or gender identity."

Everything else is just a smokescreen to avoid answering that one simple question.

Sure. But you can't answer that question without having a criteria to use to make that determination. Otherwise, you're just flipping a coin, right?



Forgive me for thinking that we should have reasons for what we do and the decisions we make Joph. I happen to believe that if you don't have a reason for giving an answer, then it's not really your answer you're giving. And in a society where we all get an equal vote, it's somewhat important that people be able to define clearly not just the decisions they've made but *why* they make them. Cause if they can't, then it's not really their vote. It's the vote of whomever they're blindly following.



I think "why" is at least as important as "what" though. Don't you agree?

So it isn't actually a decent statistic but a halfassed assumption.

Sigh. But it mentions a comparison to a form of discrimination which is more prevalent. Hence proving the point I made. X > Y; Y > Z; therefore X > Z. Logic is hard for some people I guess.

GOPSpoiler

GbajiSpoiler

My life for you!

But you keep trying! Some people would say that's admirable, so don't let your shortcomings get you down, little buddy.

It's honestly neither. If a group of people is being discriminated against, then the intent should be to be treated as the group who is not being discriminated against, not another discriminated group. So, in other words, if you HAD to choose a group to single out, it should be white men since they are the least discriminated against. "Homosexuals should be able to work just like white men". Given the fact the other groups mentioned are much more discriminated against (with the protection in place) than homosexuals, it's illogical to argue to be treated worse than you are now in attempt to be treated better.

The only reason why people take this approach is not because of any similarity, but because we're a racially sensitive nation. If you can somehow equate someone's sexual struggle with being black, then you should have the same level of sensitivity to both. That's where my beef is at, using another group's struggle as your platform while at the same time being offended when their own struggle is being used as a platform for another group's struggle.

That's my point. The GOP (who does hate homosexuals) provides this false argument to the people who do not harbor hatred for homosexuals so you can still progress their anti-homosexual agenda.


Edited, Nov 12th 2013 10:01pm by Belkira

Stop making my point better than I can, Joph. It makes me look bad.

I learnt my lesson from the gay marriage threads to be honest. Saved me a lot of keystrokes.

Edited, Nov 13th 2013 12:24am by Xsarus

To be fair, I think it's more complicated than that. There is definitely some hatred, fear and ignorance involved, but the tricky part is that there is some genuine disapproval that isn't tied to any of the aforesaid. This goes back to my statement that I made before, Republicans don't want them around, Democrats want everyone to accept them. Conceptually, they are the same.