U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-01-2009, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,011 posts, read 22,511,601 times
Reputation: 9213

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom99 View Post
Tougher question than it appears on first glance. Personal opinion, no, I absolutely do not believe in discriminating against a homosexual. However, if you know you have employees who won't be ok with it, and it will cause a distraction on the job, it doesn't make sense to introduce a disturbance to the workplace, so do you hire the gay person and fire the discriminatory person? In addition, if you are in an area where most people are discriminatory against homosexuals, and hiring one could cause harm to your company, or even run you out of business, does it make sense to hire that person? In a perfect world, this wouldn't be a problem, but in the real world, it can be a factor.

Actually its really not that tough. You could argue that having a black person at work is distractive to people who don't like blacks. If what you mean is the way the gay employee behaves that may make other people feel uncomfortable then that would be a reason not to hire them. However, just knowing a person is gay and has a same sex partner should not be a distraction the same as knowing that a female employee has a husband and children at home should not be a distraction. There used to be a time when people believed that its not acceptable for that woman to work because she would be distracted from her job. Also, the law says discrimination is wrong even if you live in a place where people think its okay to discriminate against that group.
I still disagree. I am totally opposed to discrimination in any form, so don't mistake what I am saying. I don't think that discrimination is right, but I can understand why some people, even if they don't personally have an issue hiring a gay person, might have a professional issue with it.

I am opposed to a company being forced to run themselves out of business because they are operating in an area where the majority are prejudiced. If a person is widely disliked simply because it is known that they are gay, to the point that people will not frequent a shop where they work, (And yes, there are places in this country where that is true) then I don't think it is right that a shop owner should have to put up the "Going Out of Business" sign as soon as a gay person puts in an application.

Change doesn't come to all areas at the same rate. To continue your analogy, there are still areas in this country where women are expected to work only in "accepted" roles. There are still men who won't hire women to do certain jobs because they don't think a woman can handle it, or because it would be a distraction to the men.

I don't think its right, but that wasn't my point. My point is that it isn't necessarily an easy question. Its very easy to stand at a distance and say discrimination isn't right. But if it comes down to discriminating, or doing the right thing and thereby losing your life savings and not being able to feed your family, its not so easy.

 
Old 06-01-2009, 11:48 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,461,476 times
Reputation: 3869
I'm going to apply to play basketball for the LA Lakers.

If they refuse to put me in their line-up, despite the fact that I'm a close-to-50-year-old 6'2" white guy, I'm going to sue for discrimination.

It ain't right! They canNOT discriminate against me that way!
 
Old 06-01-2009, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,712 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I'm going to apply to play basketball for the LA Lakers.

If they refuse to put me in their line-up, despite the fact that I'm a close-to-50-year-old 6'2" white guy, I'm going to sue for discrimination.

It ain't right! They canNOT discriminate against me that way!
If you meet the performance criteria why wouldn't they consider you?
 
Old 06-01-2009, 03:48 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,461,476 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
If you meet the performance criteria why wouldn't they consider you?
That's the whole point.

Often, people don't "meet the performance criteria" and are, therefore, not hired. But they cannot accept that as a reason. They claim discrimination.
 
Old 06-01-2009, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Mississauga
1,575 posts, read 1,707,712 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
That's the whole point.

Often, people don't "meet the performance criteria" and are, therefore, not hired. But they cannot accept that as a reason. They claim discrimination.
It sounds like a personal problem to me
 
Old 06-01-2009, 04:04 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,461,476 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75 View Post
It sounds like a personal problem to me
Yeah, I REALLY had my sights set on playing for the Lakers. I think I'm gonna sue!
 
Old 06-01-2009, 09:30 PM
 
71 posts, read 146,021 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
I think its ok for a private sector business owner to hire or fire anyone they choose for any reason they want.
Gov't or municiplal employers are a different matter & hireing or fireing should be based solely on the applicants ability.

[/font]

They are guilty of murder, I think murder should be a capital offense & dont think it matters if the victim was gay or not.
Do you think a gay person has a greater right to life than normal people?
If a gay person kills a straight person is that a hate crime?



Because one has nothing to do with another. I think its wrong to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender or sexual prefference.

That said I think its rediculous to consider same sex couples as married. We are what we are & if a persons gay so be it. But thats what they are & while they may love & cherish one another it simply is not the same as a hetero couple. Its no less, only different. Just as I have no right to expect people to consider me Black, Asian or Latino when I am white.



Huh? A gay person has a right to keep his private life private. I he chooses to wear homosexuality like a badge knowing it makes some people, uncomfortable its pretty silly not to expect repurcussions.



Medical or scientific? I dont think the medical communiny is all that interested in it. After all its not a cureable thing. Science says different things at different times. It was considered a sexual disorder for a long time & I'v seen nothing that would change that, other than the need to not offend. Its actually pretty sad & disturbing that science be influenced by human emotion. But I digress.



You talk in circles. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against if homosexual marriage is banned. They can marry just like anyone else.
Whats discriminatory is saying its ok for homosexuals to marry just to get marriage benefits but exclude other same sex pairs who arent gay but share a household. If gay people can marry it turns marriage into a simple contract between individuals. So if a person lives with their brother, friend, cousin, father, etc they should be able to get equal consideration.

[font=Times New Roman]

The fact is that in most instances gay people are not discriminated against & when they are its usually because they are looking for something to complain about. What is socially accepted & whats right are not one & the same.
I strongly disagree with you and I hope you are not a business owner/employer because if you acted on your beliefs you would be in serious trouble. Under federal law no employer, government or private, is allowed to discriminate when hiring employees. Again, discrimination is, 'treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit'. Now the tricky part is what groups/category is included. Again, protected categories are race, gender, religion, age, color, disability, and national origin. You cannot decide to fire an employee solely for being a muslim. For all of those inconsequential posts asking how does the employer 'know' an employee's business, it doesn't matter. The employer is discriminating and will be prosecuted for discrimination if they treat the employee diferently because they believe an employee is a muslim, even if it turns out the employee is actually a christian. We as a society have already agreed on that discrimination is wrong at least only in those specific categories. And that is why the law is the way it is. Employment Discrimination and Harassment | Business.gov

Also, you don't seem to understand what a 'hate crime' is (and you're not the only one). A hate crime is a crime against someone because of their belonging into the group/category. Laws have been passed to give the perpetrator a greater penalty for crimes motivated solely because of a person's belonging to the protected categories. For example if a black person killed a random white person solely because they hate the person for being white that person would be charged with a hate crime. The protected categories that I have repeated multiple times been defined by the federal government.

As I said before 'sexual orientation' under federal law isn't a protected category for a discrimination claim. However, people are litigating to change this. They managed to add sexual orientation as a category for a 'hate crime'. The Maneater – House bill extends definition of hate crime Republicans strongly opposed it. So (to address your claim) according to the their beliefs if a gay person kills a heterosexual solely for being heterosexual that person should not be charged with a hate crime.

Also, people have been litigating to add sexual orientation as a protected class under federal laws. Currently it is not a protected class. So according to federal law it IS okay to discriminate against gays. Thats the answer to the question. You could make moral claims as to why its wrong/not okay. But thats not the point. There are LAWS that make it illegal to discriminate against certain groups. That is how society has put its money where its mouth is when it claims discrimination against certain groups is wrong.

So why is their so much opposition to adding 'sexual orientation' as a category of discrimination? Its because they know that if they do this they won't be able to discriminate agaisnt gays in the military,in marriage, and in the general structure of society. That is what is at stake. Your argument about why bans on gay marriage are legit is based on the premise that is okay to discriminate against gays. Everyone knows that laws that define marriage as only 'between a man and woman' excludes homosexuals. According to the Supreme Court, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._VirginiaIt is ridiculous to claim that gays have the same rights as everyone else because they can choose to marry someone of a different sex. You are basically saying that gays do not have the basic rights to marry, since because of their sexual orientation which is generally accepted by the scientific community as not a choice, it is agaisnt their sexual orientation to enter a heterosexual marriage. You may claim that society does not have the obligation to change the definition of marriage (as if that hasn't changed over time ) to accomodate homosexuals. However, according to current anti-discrimination laws public accomodations must be made for people with disabilities to guarantee them the same rights as everyone else. You could also argue that society does not have to change to accomodate people with disabilities . Therefore, it is currently acceptable to discriminate (remember the definition of discrimination) against gay. People are working to keep it that way. Only individual states are taking steps to prevent this.

Sorry, when I started this thread I made the false assumption that people understood what discrimination, hate crimes, and the laws concerning them were.

As for the medical claims they are wrong. Doctors use science. Scientific research furthers medicine. Psychiatrists, can be concerned with such things as sexual orientation for their patients psychological health, are a part of the medical community.

Oh yah, and this post is directed at everyone who posts, reads it, whatever, not just the person I qouted.

Last edited by freedom99; 06-01-2009 at 09:45 PM..
 
Old 06-01-2009, 09:36 PM
 
71 posts, read 146,021 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
I still disagree. I am totally opposed to discrimination in any form, so don't mistake what I am saying. I don't think that discrimination is right, but I can understand why some people, even if they don't personally have an issue hiring a gay person, might have a professional issue with it.

I am opposed to a company being forced to run themselves out of business because they are operating in an area where the majority are prejudiced. If a person is widely disliked simply because it is known that they are gay, to the point that people will not frequent a shop where they work, (And yes, there are places in this country where that is true) then I don't think it is right that a shop owner should have to put up the "Going Out of Business" sign as soon as a gay person puts in an application.

Change doesn't come to all areas at the same rate. To continue your analogy, there are still areas in this country where women are expected to work only in "accepted" roles. There are still men who won't hire women to do certain jobs because they don't think a woman can handle it, or because it would be a distraction to the men.

I don't think its right, but that wasn't my point. My point is that it isn't necessarily an easy question. Its very easy to stand at a distance and say discrimination isn't right. But if it comes down to discriminating, or doing the right thing and thereby losing your life savings and not being able to feed your family, its not so easy.
Well you're going to have to get the laws changed.
 
Old 06-01-2009, 09:42 PM
 
71 posts, read 146,021 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Are you angry, or am I reading this wrong?
Those were hypotetical questions for the forum not just to you.
 
Old 06-02-2009, 12:09 AM
 
342 posts, read 582,633 times
Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I'm going to apply to play basketball for the LA Lakers.

If they refuse to put me in their line-up, despite the fact that I'm a close-to-50-year-old 6'2" white guy, I'm going to sue for discrimination.

It ain't right! They canNOT discriminate against me that way!
Are there jobs that require you to be over a certain height? If so is this discrimination?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top