Quote:
What criteria do we use to make that determination?
Ability, for the most part. Gays can do any jobs straights can.
Quote:
As I stated earlier, a logical criteria is to examine the broad socio-economic condition of the group in question and determine if some specific discriminatory action(s) is affecting that condition to a sufficient degree to result in a significant and clear disadvantage for that group.
I don't think too many gays are being discriminated against in the work place on the left coasts & in most of those states, its illegal to do so. Its those other states that are the problem. Those states that used to put up the "NO N*GGERS!" signs had to be legally told they couldn't do that & now EDNA tries to do the same thing in regards to homosexuals. I get that if you're a churchey origination you can use your religious justification for being a bigot as reason to either not hire or fire someone, but that shouldn't extend to the broader workforce. Separation of Church & State, Pursuit of life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness, etc.
Quote:
Historically, we have been able to show this for religious affiliation, and for sex, and for race. Thus, over time, we've added each of those to a short list of criteria which cannot be used to discriminate. That's the criteria we use. The problem is that when you try to apply that criteria to sexual orientation, it doesn't work.
If "ability to do the job" is the reason we've decided its not ok to discriminate against one's religion, gender, or race; how does that not work for sexual orientation?
Quote:
There is not very clear and significant differences in socio-economic status that can be tied directly and purely to sexual orientation. Certainly not when compared to other groups for which we allow discrimination (such as short people, as I mentioned earlier). There must be some objective threshold of "harm" at which we decide is sufficient to justify prohibiting discrimination, and sexual orientation doesn't meet it.
I think its pretty harmful for the gay person who is fired once his bigot of a boss finds out he's gay. Just as its harmful for the Muslim who's fired because his boss finds out he's muslim. Neither being muslim, nor gay, has any effect on one's ability to do a job so you shouldn't be able to be fired for being either.
Quote:
That's why we should not add them to the list. It's not about liking or disliking homosexuals. It's about homosexuals simply not being disadvantaged sufficiently within our society to justify this special protection. Again, you're all free to disagree, but if you do, then you have to actually make the case that they are sufficiently disadvantaged. And to do that, you have to first show their degree of overall disadvantage and then show that this is greater than any other currently unprotected group and thus they require special protection. If you can't do that, but still argue for them to be granted special protection, then your position is not based on any objective criteria but rather some form of preference for a given group. Which is a **** poor way to do things IMO.
I'm fairly certain anyone whom thinks it should be ok to discriminate based upon sexual orientation dislikes homosexuals, or is pandering for the votes of people that do. The person who is not hired or fired because their boss dislikes homosexuals is sufficiently disadvantaged, even if the overall rate of disenfranchisement across the country isn't high enough for your standards. Protecting a homosexual's right to work isn't a "special" protection, its equal protection. If you really think thats wrong, well, you're an *******.