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 06-03-2009, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,013 posts, read 22,537,670 times
Reputation: 9223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom99 View Post
Well you're going to have to get the laws changed.
I'm not sure what you even mean by this, or how it relates to my post.

Anyway, the problem isn't in the law, its in the people. I'd rather start by changing them. If there were no bigots, there would be no need to change the law.

 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:49 PM
 
596 posts, read 738,984 times
Reputation: 1080
My opinions on this subject have evolved quite a bit, based mostly on communicating with homosexuals via forums like this. I asked the question that someone posed earlier as to why homosexuals identify so strongly to their sexual orientation as part of their identity. It was explained to me that they had to struggle for so long to gain the acceptance that they currently have, that they really feel that if they don't stay "out there" with it, they will not be able to continue to gain greater acceptance. This made a lot of sense to me. I also learned a lot about the gay rights movement that I didn't already know. It really is a good idea to research it and expand your horizons.

Now, to the OP's question. I want to bring up a form of discrimination that I don't think anyone has touched on yet. What if I have a room to rent out in my home. Can I discriminate against a gay couple if I have small, impressionable children in my home? Curious to hear everyone's opinions on that one.

Also, my husband worked with a gay gentleman who had a sales job. He was very flamboyant and his territory was expanded to include a rural, bible belt-type area. The company noticed that his performance was very poor in those areas (especially compared to his sales in the urban area). Would they be right to remove him from the rural area?
 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,613,725 times
Reputation: 35875
Americans, more than most western countries, think it is undesirable to have homosexual neighbors (survey in the 1990s)

# 1 Japan: 69%
# 2 Austria: 43%
# 3 Italy: 37%
# 4 United States: 34%
# 5 Ireland: 33%
# 6 Canada: 30%
# 7 Finland: 28%
# 8 Germany: 26%
# 9 Australia: 25%
= 10 Belgium: 24%
= 10 France: 24%
# 12 Switzerland: 19%
# 13 Norway: 18%
# 14 Sweden: 15%
# 15 Denmark: 12%
# 16 Netherlands: 11%
Weighted average: 28.0%
 
Old 06-04-2009, 02:12 AM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,916,197 times
Reputation: 717
Talking you got to pick a question or two, boy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoBankerGirl View Post
My opinions on this subject have evolved quite a bit, based mostly on communicating with homosexuals via forums like this. I asked the question that someone posed earlier as to why homosexuals identify so strongly to their sexual orientation as part of their identity. It was explained to me that they had to struggle for so long to gain the acceptance that they currently have, that they really feel that if they don't stay "out there" with it, they will not be able to continue to gain greater acceptance. This made a lot of sense to me. I also learned a lot about the gay rights movement that I didn't already know. It really is a good idea to research it and expand your horizons.

Now, to the OP's question. I want to bring up a form of discrimination that I don't think anyone has touched on yet. What if I have a room to rent out in my home. Can I discriminate against a gay couple if I have small, impressionable children in my home? Curious to hear everyone's opinions on that one.

Also, my husband worked with a gay gentleman who had a sales job. He was very flamboyant and his territory was expanded to include a rural, bible belt-type area. The company noticed that his performance was very poor in those areas (especially compared to his sales in the urban area). Would they be right to remove him from the rural area?
yes, you may decide on whomever you choose as a renter. it is your private home, and therefore federal mandates on discrimination do not apply in your scenario. the salesman's removal from an area in which he under-performs, for whatever reason, would be the company's right. naturally, resulting actions by the company would have to be based on the employee's contract, and its outline of at will employment vs. for cause dismissal.
 
Old 06-04-2009, 07:46 AM
 
596 posts, read 738,984 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingchef View Post
yes, you may decide on whomever you choose as a renter. it is your private home, and therefore federal mandates on discrimination do not apply in your scenario. the salesman's removal from an area in which he under-performs, for whatever reason, would be the company's right. naturally, resulting actions by the company would have to be based on the employee's contract, and its outline of at will employment vs. for cause dismissal.
California Tenants - California Department of Consumer Affairs (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discrimination.shtml - broken link)

Not so, in California anyway.

Under California law, it is unlawful for a landlord, managing agent, real estate broker, or salesperson to discriminate against a person or harass a person because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or medical conditions related to them, as well as gender and perception of gender), sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability 32. California law also prohibits discrimination based on any of the following:
  • A person's medical condition or mental or physical disability; or
  • Personal characteristics, such as a person's physical appearance or sexual orientation that are not related to the responsibilities of a tenant;33 or
  • A perception of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability or medical conditions, or a perception that a person is associated with another person who may have any of these characteristics.34
 
Old 06-04-2009, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,613,725 times
Reputation: 35875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoBankerGirl View Post
California Tenants - California Department of Consumer Affairs (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/discrimination.shtml - broken link)

Not so, in California anyway.
So that's why nobody in California picks up hitchhikers. California law is so rigid, it is illegal to discriminate when deciding whom to pick up. There seems to be no difference between whom you allow to live in your own home, and whom you allow to ride in your car.
 
Old 06-04-2009, 11:32 AM
 
Location: John & Ken-ville
13,692 posts, read 15,126,228 times
Reputation: 9492
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom99 View Post
So, do you think it is okay for an employer to refuse to hire someone because they are gay?

It depends on the job. They shouldn't be working in a field anywhere near a child, a job that requires any type of integrity with regard to national security, medicine, or foodservice.

Also, do you think that someone who kills someone because they are gay should be guilty of a hate crime?


No the crime is murder, not gay murder.

If you believe its wrong to discriminate against gays and also oppose gay marriage could you explain why this makes sense to you.

I support civil unions. I do not support marriage.

The way I understand it is if sexual orientation is only a choice made by an individual then how can homosexuals be discriminated against since they could just choose to be heterosexuals if they wanted to be treated like everyone else? For example if an employer refused to hire people who came to an interview wearing their jackets inside out, they would not be guilty of discrimination. Those people made a choice to come to the interview that way and know that their behavior is socially unacceptable and could cost them a job. The same logic can easily be applied to gays if homosexuality is only a choice. However, the medical community has generally accepted that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Why does sexual orientation need to be a condition used against someone for being fired or not being hired? As far as I'm concerned nobody should know what your sexuality is. There is no way or reason for them to know if you don't tell them.

If people see homosexuals as a group that can be discriminated against then it makes no sense to ban same sex marriage. By wanting to ban same sex marriage you are saying that marriage is a right that can only be enjoyed by heterosexual people. If homosexuals want to marry then they must become heterosexuals. This makes sense if homosexuality is only a choice.

Nobody knows what makes a homosexual. Environmental or genetic or natal. It may be a combination of all three or one or none of that. When that enigma is solved we can make a better decision. The only thing we do know is that it was once considered a mental disorder and then removed in the 1970's from the APA as such. The World Health Organization kept it as a disorder until 1981, why was it considered a disorder by the WHO for so long? There must be a reason why and how it was removed.

However, many states have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, although I don't know if their are any federal discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Homosexuals can only be discriminated against if they are understood as that can't change their sexual orientation to match what is scene as 'culturally acceptable'. The fact that there are laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and that many people who oppose gay marriage claim they have nothing against gays suggests homosexuals are viewed as a distinct group and discriminating against them is becoming less socially acceptable.

Homosexuals will be discriminated against because they continue to make their sexuality a bargaining chip. When they let go of their "gayness" they may find that it's not necessary to categorize themselves by their sexual deeds.
My comments above in green.
 
Old 06-04-2009, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,613,725 times
Reputation: 35875
Reference to my chart at post #53, Americans tend to be a bit less tolerant of their neighbors than most people in industrialized countries. People were surveyed in 16 countries about what kinds of people they woould consider to be Undesirable Neighbors. Americans are very tolerant of political extremists, middle of the pack on race and AIDS, and more intolerant than average on everything else. Here is where American ranked in each category:

Category---USA Rank --- USA % ---weighted Avg--Highest--lowest

Criminal---1-- 58--36--USA--Switzerland
Race---7---8---9---Finland---Switzerland
Drug addict---2--80--30--Japan--Switzerland
Emotionally unstable --2--47--28--Japan--Switzerland
Homosexual--4---58---28--Japan--Netherlands
Heavy drinkers---1---61---49---USA---Norway
Immigrant---9---10---11---Austria---Ireland
AIDS---6---24---31---Switzerland---Denmark
Political Extremist---12---36--42---Japan ---Denmark
 
Old 06-04-2009, 04:23 PM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,916,197 times
Reputation: 717
Default a dying argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
My comments above in green.
much of this argument could have standing and could be advanced, if it were not for major contradictions in the area of employment segregation and the proposition of a "do not inform" position of one's physical health or sexual orientation. the employee who is ill and who is hired under contract or "at will", while having health and safety issues contrary to statutes covering public policy and safety, brings immediate compromise and jeopardy to his prospective employment. for this reason, i have difficulty accepting the proponents of the argument, in total. there are other points in the post that need clarification, also; however, the above appears to be fatal to any argument.
 
Old 06-04-2009, 09:03 PM
 
Location: memphis tn
530 posts, read 568,646 times
Reputation: 119
it is not acceptable to discriminate against anyone, for any reason, ever!
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