Active Users:1144 Time:23/11/2024 12:42:29 AM
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." Joel Send a noteboard - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
I was discussing with someone the other day how best to tackle private employment discrimination. There has been a suggestion that sexual orientation could be protected by the "basis of sex" clauses of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This actually could work to some extent, because sexual orientation discrimination is discimination on the basis of the sex of the person's associations (or their associations' associations, etc.), which is analogous to miscegenation in the workplace. Where it fails is when the employer says they aren't even considering the person's orientation or relationships, but merely their politics. For instance, if they can fire a heterosexual who displays a Human Rights Watch bumper sticker on their vehicle, then they can fire a homosexual for the same thing. It's the "I don't care if you're gay -- just don't throw your politics in my face" attitude.

That is a tricky issue. I know I wouldn't want to lose the right to fire someone for politically associating with Neo-Nazis. If it's my business, it's my business. But at the same time, it isn't currently possible for a gay person to disassociate their politics from their sexual orientation. So firing someone for their politics seems all too handy an excuse for firing someone who also oh-so-coincidentally just happens to be gay.

That covers a lot of ground, and I tried to avoid going there after getting into it a while back over equal opportunity housing and related laws. The bottom line is that we cannot, or should not, ban bigotry itself. Free democratic societies tend to gradually reduce bigotry by ostracizing bigots (which is not "bigotry against bigots" because it rejects behavior, not people.) What we cannot do is let the majority dictate what everyone believes or how they choose to dispose of their own property. Unfortunately, that means businesses ought to be able to post "Irish need not apply" signs if willing to deal with the loss of trade such practices provoke.

It is less tricky than it is a case of tolerating views we despise for the sake of protecting those we cherish; such is liberty. We can and should advocate and organize against bigotry, but by social rather than legal means (which applies to hate crime laws, too; where I am from all murders are created equal.) The only exception to that rule should be in public service, which manifestly involves the law and is legally required to provide equal protection by the law.

This is why (as I think you argued similarly elsewhere) it isn't always possible to simply generalize the solution. Generalizing in this case would take away too many personal freedoms of business owners. Sometimes protections have to be tailored to specific groups in order to protect even the very people who despise them.

The moment we specify particular groups we implicitly condone discrimination for/against them. That is much of why, half a century after amending the Constitution to give blacks the vote, we had to amend it AGAIN to give women the vote: Because instead of asserting a universal civil right for all law-abiding adult citizens, we specified one disenfranchised group and ignored the rest. Meanwhile, American Indians and immigrants from Asia and Latin America looked on, wondering when it would be their turn for democracy and civil rights. And, of course, because we specified certain rights for specific groups, the same old bigots immediately went to work crafting ways to circumvent the Constitution and restore the racist status quo; it took them but a decade to accomplish and America a century to reverse.

Rights are either universal or non-existent. Any non-universal right remains a mere privilege indulged/revoked by a ruling elite as convenient.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 23/10/2012 at 09:14:31 PM
Reply to message
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy? - 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM 1368 Views
Legal rights. - 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM 776 Views
It almost sounds like you are saying... - 20/10/2012 12:31:40 AM 745 Views
That is what I'm saying it. - 20/10/2012 01:07:50 AM 727 Views
Technically, privileges, not rights. - 20/10/2012 04:16:45 AM 731 Views
Sure - 20/10/2012 12:35:53 AM 658 Views
All for it... For adults over the age of 18. *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:18:04 AM 390 Views
What about it? - 20/10/2012 01:21:17 AM 734 Views
+1 *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:51:25 AM 423 Views
+2 *NM* - 20/10/2012 11:18:39 AM 375 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM 376 Views
poly people? - 20/10/2012 12:44:01 PM 701 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM 368 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does. - 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM 704 Views
That's not what I'm saying - 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM 721 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard! - 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM 670 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence.. - 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM 747 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid. - 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM 666 Views
The more fool you. - 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM 759 Views
Ha! Point. *NM* - 20/10/2012 05:40:34 AM 566 Views
Marriage is always a choice, whatever the motive(s.) - 22/10/2012 04:00:40 PM 691 Views
I got no opinion on it. - 20/10/2012 12:51:43 PM 788 Views
The idea of a group marriage makes me uncomfortable - 20/10/2012 04:19:48 PM 669 Views
As long as it is equitable - 20/10/2012 05:55:57 PM 661 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway - 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM 733 Views
Indeed - 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM 790 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business. - 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM 1066 Views
And so? - 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM 698 Views
Re: And so? - 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM 864 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none. - 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM 744 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed. - 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM 671 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government. - 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM 604 Views
Much less force, yes. - 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM 612 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM 685 Views
+1 *NM* - 23/10/2012 07:36:46 PM 309 Views
No the analogy is not exact, nor legally the same... - 23/10/2012 07:33:25 PM 579 Views
Analogy is not equality, only similarity. - 24/10/2012 04:37:29 PM 778 Views
We aren't asking for something better or different. - 23/10/2012 04:27:04 PM 673 Views
yeah, it is very circular. - 23/10/2012 07:44:33 PM 704 Views

Reply to Message