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 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.
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
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy?
20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM
- 1381 Views
Legal rights.
20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM
- 785 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM*
20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM
- 383 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM*
20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM
- 371 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does.
20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM
- 712 Views
That's not what I'm saying
21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM
- 732 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard!
21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM
- 682 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence..
20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM
- 756 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid.
20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM
- 676 Views
The more fool you.
21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM
- 771 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue.
22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM
- 706 Views
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not.
21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM
- 659 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two.
20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM
- 769 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption
21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM
- 725 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant
21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM
- 832 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating...
21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM
- 723 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society.
20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM
- 774 Views
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it.
22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM
- 669 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships
20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM
- 699 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM*
20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM
- 373 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition.
20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
- 774 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say.
20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM
- 874 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM*
20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM
- 397 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage.
20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM
- 696 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway
21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM
- 746 Views
Indeed
21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM
- 805 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business.
21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM
- 1079 Views
And so?
21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM
- 708 Views
Re: And so?
21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM
- 876 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM*
22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM
- 377 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges...
22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM
- 640 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM
- 702 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail.
22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM
- 672 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k.
22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM
- 620 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change.
22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM
- 678 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle
23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM
- 610 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement.
23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
- 659 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none.
22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM
- 756 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed.
23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM
- 682 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government.
23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM
- 620 Views
Much less force, yes.
23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM
- 623 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM
- 698 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business."
23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM
- 639 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.")
24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM
- 664 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences.
25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM
- 717 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM*
24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM
- 346 Views