Harry Reid & Enda

[rockpond]

Or that you can only discriminate some one if they are a minority.

ENDA protects individuals against discrimination regardless of which sexual orientation you are. The law doesn't single out minority orientations only.

Similarly, laws against racial discrimination protect both the majority and the minorities.

[strappinglad]

ENDA protects individuals against discrimination regardless of which sexual orientation you are. The law doesn't single out minority orientations only. Similarly, laws against racial discrimination protect both the majority and the minorities.

Theory vs practice. Discrimination is usually, but not always, a one way street.

[rockpond]

Theory vs practice. Discrimination is usually, but not always, a one way street.

Agreed but the law covers "both ways" on that street.

[rockpond]

Two men work in a hair style shop. One is gay, the other straight. The shop owner is bi. A lot of the clientel are gay. Over time the gay hairdresser is promoted and given benefits that the other man isn't. Eventually the straight stylist is let go, because he doesn't fit the 'atmosphere'. What would be his chances of winning a discrimination suit against the shop? As a WASP male he does not fit into any protected group. Now try the similar but reversed situation in a mechanics shop. Discrimination is discrimination except when the law doesn't recognize a particular class of discriminees(sic).

If ENDA is passed, I'd say his chances of winning are pretty good.

[Stargazer]

ENDA means you can't fire someone simply because of their sexual orientation. The Church agrees.

Does the Church agree? I have no idea.

That being said, in my libertarian heart I believe that the government should not interfere with hiring and firing decisions in private companies. Myself, if I ran a software development company (for that is my profession), I would never base hiring or firing decisions solely on sexual orientation, race, gender, creed, or any other arbitrary characteristic, but solely on how much a given person contributed towards the bottom line. If a gay Chinese woman who liked to come to work dressed in Bavarian lederhosen and carrying bagpipes was a better programmer than a straight white man dressed in a suit and tie, I would hire her and not him (just so long as she did not play the pipes at work). But if I hired her, and she became disruptive in the workplace and began contributing negatively to my bottom line, then I would fire her -- as would I fire the straight white guy. The problem with laws against discrimination is that she could sue me under such laws for discrimination (though good luck to the straight white guy).  And regardless of whether she won or lost her case, I would lose, because my costs of defending against the suit could very well bankrupt me.

 

Sure, sure this would never happen.  For one thing, how many women like wearing Bavarian Tracht?  But it could.

 

Do any of you remember 44Foxtrot who used to post here (before he was banned)?  He made it clear that his company looked very crosseyed at theists (he was a really big atheist former LDS), and believers had to be very very good and walk a very fine line.  This means of course that his hiring and firing decisions were very much based upon creed, and would be illegal under such schemes of anti-discrimination.  I happen to believe that 44Foxtrot should be permitted to hire or fire anyone at all whom he wanted to, and if he wanted to fire an employee because he was a Mormon, even if that employee were me, then fine. 

[Stargazer]

If ENDA is passed, I'd say his chances of winning are pretty good.

 

Living in a dream world is certainly pleasant, but reality eventually crashes the party and ruins everything.

[rockpond]

Living in a dream world is certainly pleasant, but reality eventually crashes the party and ruins everything.

Okay, so let me see if I understand your position... You are concerned about heterosexuals being discriminated against and fired for their sexual orientation so your solution is to opposed ENDA which would make such discrimination illegal at the federal level?

[thesometimesaint]

It's far more disappointing that any member of the Church would equate a behavior with minority status.

 

Like being a member of the Church makes a person in the majority. Maybe after the Millennium.

[thesometimesaint]

I am sorry but I am in favor of educating people and teaching them correct principals and then letting them govern themselves. But there is a reason we have courts. And he or she simply could file a civil case. We don't need to make laws the protect certain people and set them above the rest.  We need equal treatment under the law. And so far we as a country are going to wrong way. What happen if I as a white male don't get a job and IO was legitamtly discriminated against? Nothing. I would move one. I could not even file a law suit and win.  That is how things go sometimes. Keep in mind that I am not for people disciminateing against any minority. But I know people will do what they will do. And putting laws on the books really isn't going to solve the issues you think it will I mean affermative action is not exactly a good thing and all we would get is more affermative action from laws like this. Oh well I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue. We are just coming from totally different view points.  

 

Education is crucial, enforcement is mandatory.

[california boy]

Does the Church agree? I have no idea.

That being said, in my libertarian heart I believe that the government should not interfere with hiring and firing decisions in private companies. Myself, if I ran a software development company (for that is my profession), I would never base hiring or firing decisions solely on sexual orientation, race, gender, creed, or any other arbitrary characteristic, but solely on how much a given person contributed towards the bottom line. If a gay Chinese woman who liked to come to work dressed in Bavarian lederhosen and carrying bagpipes was a better programmer than a straight white man dressed in a suit and tie, I would hire her and not him (just so long as she did not play the pipes at work). But if I hired her, and she became disruptive in the workplace and began contributing negatively to my bottom line, then I would fire her -- as would I fire the straight white guy. The problem with laws against discrimination is that she could sue me under such laws for discrimination (though good luck to the straight white guy).  And regardless of whether she won or lost her case, I would lose, because my costs of defending against the suit could very well bankrupt me.

 

Sure, sure this would never happen.  For one thing, how many women like wearing Bavarian Tracht?  But it could.

 

Do any of you remember 44Foxtrot who used to post here (before he was banned)?  He made it clear that his company looked very crosseyed at theists (he was a really big atheist former LDS), and believers had to be very very good and walk a very fine line.  This means of course that his hiring and firing decisions were very much based upon creed, and would be illegal under such schemes of anti-discrimination.  I happen to believe that 44Foxtrot should be permitted to hire or fire anyone at all whom he wanted to, and if he wanted to fire an employee because he was a Mormon, even if that employee were me, then fine. 

I am very much a liberitarian at heart as well.  But I also believe in one of the pillars of this country is equality.  I think that this principle has done more to diversify and raise the citizens of this country than any other guarenteed principle presented in the constitution.  I will ask you the same question I asked Mola which is still unanswered by him.

 

Are you ok with "Blacks (insert any minority) need not apply" signs in the window.  And just as related are you ok with "Blacks not served here".

 

I agree with Thesometimessaint.  

Education is crucial, enforcement is mandatory.

 

[Anijen]

Scenario: a right to work state fires the gay guy, but not because he is gay, but because they can (right to work). What happens then?

[california boy]

Scenario: a right to work state fires the gay guy, but not because he is gay, but because they can (right to work). What happens then?

If they fire him for some other reason than being gay, then he is fired.  If they fired him simply because they found out he is gay, then I believe he would have legal recourse, just like any other minority that was fired solely for being a minority.  

[Stargazer]

Okay, so let me see if I understand your position... You are concerned about heterosexuals being discriminated against and fired for their sexual orientation so your solution is to opposed ENDA which would make such discrimination illegal at the federal level?

I'm concerned about everybody being sued for discrimination. Where does it stop? It's been increasing gradually more and more year by year. Eventually, no-one will be able to fire anyone for any reason whatsoever.

More to the point, it seems that it would be most unwise to take the risk of hiring a gay person because what happens if it turns out they can't do the job? Do I face a lawsuit or not?

I work for a state government in the US. I am a computer programmer. I have considered starting a software company, and among my coworkers who might try to get a job with my company are one straight guy, Tom, and one gay guy, Ross. I like both of them a lot, they are fine people, but Tom is a lot better programmer, and he picks up new techniques and technology very quickly. I know his code very well, and he writes excellent code. On the other hand, Ross, writes OK code, but he is nowhere near as good as Tom, and when he is involved in a new project he likes to come to me for me to teach him how to do things that he should have been able to figure out quickly on his own. If I were faced with making a hiring decision between the two of them, I would pick Tom before I would pick Ross, and in fact I wouldn't even consider hiring Ross, not because of his sexual orientation, but because of his abiity.

\

But while Tom couldn't sue me for discrimination, as he happens to be white and straight, Ross could -- I actually don't think Ross would, but he COULD. Even now, before ENDA.

That is why I disagree with laws such as this.

Of former coworkers whom I would hire even before Tom, by the way, was a young black woman with a masters degree in computer science whom I would hire in a heartbeat, and before even Tom. She is brilliant -- and of course has her pick of employers, by the way. I probably couldn't afford hiring her, however.

[The Nehor]

I thought we already had bills on record for this?  Why clutter up the law books with more hubris?

 

The joys of Federalism. What are you? Some kind of anti-state's rights weirdo?

 

It's far more disappointing that any member of the Church would equate a behavior with minority status.

 

Yes, why do we protect Mormons from discrimination again? They claim to be a minority but they can stop being one at any time. It is all based on their behavior.

[Stargazer]

I am very much a liberitarian at heart as well.  But I also believe in one of the pillars of this country is equality.  I think that this principle has done more to diversify and raise the citizens of this country than any other guarenteed principle presented in the constitution.  I will ask you the same question I asked Mola which is still unanswered by him.

 

Are you ok with "Blacks (insert any minority) need not apply" signs in the window.  And just as related are you ok with "Blacks not served here".

 

I agree with Thesometimessaint.

I would be strongly tempted to rip down any such signs and stomp them in the dust. I would be strongly tempted to burn such a place to the ground (although I would resist that temptation). I would gladly join a public demonstration against such places, and I would like to punch the proprietor in his pimply face. I'd probably stop at the face-punching, since I am fat and soft. On the other hand, if I sat on him ... well, anyway, you get the idea.

I am all for freedom, and laissez faire. I actually believe that if such a place tried to stay in business it would eventually fail for economic reasons, because too many people would choose not to patronize them.

Back in 1967 my family was on a trip to Canada and we passed through Louisiana (I was 15). We stopped at a gas station and I went to the side of the building where the rest rooms were because I needed to. When I came to the restrooms I saw three doors, marked "Men", "Women" and "Colored". I was so shocked at that last sign that I could not go in and take care of business. I made myself wait until we reached New Orleans and we checked into our motel. I utterly hate racism, and cannot bear other kinds of discrimination either. On the sole occasion when I was "cruised" by a gay guy, I politely told him "No thanks".

But I still don't approve of laws forbidding idiot behavior by private businesses.

As to places of "public accommodation", however, such as public transportation, drinking fountains, employment in government, hotels, motels, etc., I think that non-discrimination laws have a place there.

[BCSpace]

It's far more disappointing that any member of the Church would equate a behavior with minority status.

 

Yes, why do we protect Mormons from discrimination again? They claim to be a minority but they can stop being one at any time. It is all based on their behavior.

 

 

I don't detect anyone trying to argue that Mormons ought to fall under suspect classification. Do you?

[The Nehor]

I don't detect anyone trying to argue that Mormons ought to fall under suspect classification. Do you?

Mostly because there is no widespread discrimination against Mormons.

Your argument is akin to a white guy during the civil rights movement saying, "Why do you need special protections against discrimination? I don't need any. Why do you?"

[BCSpace]

Your argument is akin to a white guy during the civil rights movement saying, "Why do you need special protections against discrimination? I don't need any. Why do you?"

 

Not at all as the comparison you are giving deviates from mine which is based on behavior and not an immutable and/or highly visible trait.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't detect anyone trying to argue that Mormons ought to fall under suspect classification. Do you?

 

Not sure what you mean here. Mormons have been discriminated against in the past, presently, and hopefully not in the future. We especially should be wary of anyone whom claims that their religion entitles them to do unto us whatever they want.

[BCSpace]

Not sure what you mean here.

 

The homosexual agenda is not comparable to the civil rights movement.  Nor does it qualify for strict scrutiny in Equal Protection cases.  But we haven't even progressed to being able to justify a behavior as putting one in a "minority" status or being subject to any type of discrimination beyond judging between good and evil or right and wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

The homosexual agenda is not comparable to the civil rights movement.  Nor does it qualify for strict scrutiny in Equal Protection cases.

 

Actually it does. The Civil Rights movement at its core was all about citizens of the US being able to exercise their civil rights without extralegal entanglements.

 

Equal Protection under the law is fundamental to our system of governance. I can't think of a more important concept in law that what applies to you applies to me. We fought a revolution over the fact that as British citizens we weren't being treated the same as British citizens in Britain.

[BCSpace]

 

The homosexual agenda is not comparable to the civil rights movement.  Nor does it qualify for strict scrutiny in Equal Protection cases.

 

Actually it does. The Civil Rights movement at its core was all about citizens of the US being able to exercise their civil rights without extralegal entanglements.

 

 

Actually it doesn't.  That kind of discrimination was based on something immutable and highly visible.  Hence it involved a protected 'suspect classification' of people.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does the church agree? The newsroom made a point of publishing a response but they said that they don't have a position on the legislation.

It is rare for the Church to endorse any specific legislation, though there may be some conceptual or theoretical agreement.

As for Reid's statement, I don't think the Church was all that different before from how he sees it now. I think he's trying to make political points -- as when he slandered Romney during the campaign.

I've not held him in very high regard since the occasion years ago when he behaved very boorishly toward me during a phone interview. I've never had anyone be that uncivil toward me in my entire career, Mormon or non-Mormon, politician or not.

The irony is that the interview was for an article that was intended to make him look good, and he knew it.

[Kenngo1969]

ENDA protects individuals against discrimination regardless of which sexual orientation you are. The law doesn't single out minority orientations only. Similarly, laws against racial discrimination protect both the majority and the minorities.

Unless President Obama instructs his Attorney General to not enforce them such that that is the case.

[Kenngo1969]

It is rare for the Church to endorse any specific legislation, though there may be some conceptual or theoretical agreement.

As for Reid's statement, I don't think the Church was all that different before from how he sees it now. I think he's trying to make political points -- as when he slandered Romney during the campaign.

I've not held him in very high regard since the occasion years ago when he behaved very boorishly toward me during a phone interview. I've never had anyone be that uncivil toward me in my entire career, Mormon or non-Mormon, politician or not.

The irony is that the interview was for an article that was intended to make him look good, and he knew it.

Could you have, maybe, slipped the notes from that interview to someone over at the Tribune?  (It's a shame they had to go to ... uhhh ... waste.  Because, you know, I just hate the thought of killing trees needlessly.  )