deleted as it was repeated from my pervious posting
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:10 pm
currently these are the only states that disallow discrimination against gays in housing:Connecticut (Title 46A §81e)
Hawaii (§368-1)
Maryland (Article 49B §22)
Massachusetts (Ch. 151B § 3(6))
Minnesota (Ch. 363.12)
New Hampshire (Title 31, Ch. 354A, § 354-A:8)
New Jersey (Title 10:5-3)
Rhode Island (Title 34, Ch. 34-37, § 34-37-1)
Vermont (Title 9, §4503(1))
Wisconsin (Ch. 106.50)
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:13 pm
regarding employement: According to the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, the hodgepodge of laws and ordinances means that approximately 62% of the population has no legislative protection from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, at least in the private sector. In the public sector, the percent of the unprotected population is slightly lower. And there is another potential complication. Courts have split on whether there is legal protection for workers who do not openly identify themselves as gay but who are discriminated against because an employer believes they are gay.
0 Replies
trespassers will
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:14 pm
dys - If any such law exists it would not stand up to Constitutional challenge.
And "regarding employment" your stats address whether or not special rights have been afforded, not whether they are a legitimate curative to the problem of discrimination.
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:18 pm
dys - If any such law exists it would not stand up to Constitutional challenge
explain?
0 Replies
trespassers will
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:23 pm
If the Constitution guarantees us equal treatment under the law, how can a legitimate (Constitutional) law exist that calls for unequal treatment?
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:29 pm
dyslexia wrote:
According to the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, the hodgepodge of laws and ordinances means that approximately 62% of the population has no legislative protection from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, at least in the private sector.
Does anyone think that if the appropriate law is accepted, discrimination at the workplace will end? Employer may not declare openly that he fires Mr. John Doe for his being gay, he may find a thousand other reasons for doing this. No one is a perfect employee, and the gay Mr. John Doe is not an exception...
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:29 pm
um perchance i have not been clear, the states listed are the only ones that prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. and i don't know what that has to do with constitutional guarantees
0 Replies
trespassers will
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 01:52 pm
dys - It seems that you are equating the absence of legislation affording special rights to unequal treatment, and I find that an unsupportable assertion. (I don't doubt that gay activists are making that argument, I'm just saying it's not a valid argument.)
0 Replies
dagmaraka
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 03:38 pm
tres - of course those are two different things, i do not think anyone was mistaking one for the other. collective rights are not 'special'. as i said before, this group of rights are only legal measures to ameliorate the social discrepancies (i.e. poverty, or unequal access to education, etc.) between groups. people do belong to groups in the u.s. as well, yes? why ignore the status quo when it comes to legislation then? to put it very simply: it is one thing if you have all the rights and money, and if you have all the rights and no money (again, historical reasons, cultural...). and we do know there are groups of people that have been disadvantaged this way in the past and carry that burden until today. thus, if you don't want to call it collective rights, how about some legal protection for these disadvantaged groups of people? that is all that the idea of collective rights is about. there is a ton of literature out there, the Vienna Human Rights Congress (not sure about translation into english) was one of the main happenings in this area, good place to begin research on the topic, if you are interested. U.S., naturally, did not sign the final convention (one of the few countries that didnt't, but that doesn't come as a surprise). I have taught both Human Rights Theory and the American Public Policy and know the legal provisions of this country. All people have equal rights for a very short time only (not even sure when to start counting, prolly only since mid-sixties after Brown II and the ERA). And although the legislation and implementation are, as you say, two different things, you cannot disregard the latter while drafting the former. That's all I was trying to say,
0 Replies
JerryR
1
Reply
Fri 14 Feb, 2003 08:40 pm
Hi all!!
I've caught up with today's posts, and re-read mine from last night.
dagmaraka- Sorry if my thoughts were a bit disorderly last night, it was very late for me. I certainly don't think that anyone is going to win rights on a personal level. My thinking is that bigotry can never be forced to end, that is the battle that is fought on a personal level, and that is how it will be won. Fear of the unknown is our biggest enemy, in my experience people are pretty accepting of most things once those things have familiar, friendly faces. I suppose that I am lucky, as I have never experienced discrimination because of my sexuality. I am inclined to believe it is that way for the majority of gay people, at least in this country.
I also believe that allowing gay marriage will be the catalyst that brings the other issues into line.
Some other thoughts:
On employment:
I have noticed that most people just don't care,..straight, gay or purple,.if you do a good job they appreciate that and are happy to have you work for them. The flip side is, if they don't like you, they'll find a way to get rid of you. This being true, if there is an employer intolerant of gays, who wants to get rid of a gay employee,..they're going to find a way, anti-discrimination laws or not.
Housing:
Is this really an issue? I hadn't heard that it was, but I suppose if there are people fighting for these laws, it must be.
It still puts an ache in my gut, cause I do believe that a property owner shouldn't have to rent to people they don't want to,..but then again, what do I know?
About the Law:
Again, no one is lookin for special rights, which is why I believe that giving the movement a name (gay rights) is a disservice. It makes it sound like we want something extra. All that is really necessary is a guarantee that our rights (same as everyone else's) are protected.
0 Replies
trespassers will
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 12:55 am
Quote:
how about some legal protection for these disadvantaged groups of people
I'm all for them having the same legal protections as every other American. Anything else does not meet the standards set by our Constitution, no matter how they do it across the pond. (Of course, that hasn't stopped them from passing legislation here that amounts to unequal protection under the law, but I hope against hope that one day people will wake up and realize that equal treatment is something we can achieve; equal outcome is not.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 09:15 am
tres
I'm afraid I think your unyielding adherence to singliing out any class or group for special dispensation or treatment is wrong-headed. I understand it is a constitutional argument, but I also understand that it falls out from the strict reading which is, as you know, not even nearly the unanimous view of constitutional scholarship.
The matter of outcomes is critical. The constitution itself was designed to facilitate certain outcomes which is the reason constitutions get written in the first place. Eg maximal equality of opportunity, or maximal liberty for individuals.
Anti-segregation legislation obviously acknowledged a class of people who were, by social tradition and institutional 'habit', kept as second class citizens. Sufferage legislation the same.
Though more extreme, let's take the case of India where it is still the case (though much more rare now) that women with 'inadequate' dowries are murdered. One would hope that any strict reading of Indian constitutional law would fall before the humanitarian need to promote equality.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 09:18 am
Tres, we've been over this before.
"Equal treatment" is not the same as "equal opportunity." Two guys get the exact same treatment as they set up for a foot race. Same shoes, same uniform, take off at the same time. The guy in red had plenty to eat, plenty of sleep, and is hale and hearty. The guy in blue had no sleep, no food, and has been pummeled for several hours preceding the race.
Standing back and saying, "well, they have the same shoes!" is a cop-out.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 09:32 am
Position of the only gay participant of this thread (I mean JerryR) seems to be the most balanced. Gays do not need special rights, they just want their sexuality to be disregarded in everything that does not pertain to sex per se, just as the straights' sexuality is. All they want, IMHO, that their privacy being free from interference (well, does anyone of the straight people want the opposite thing?).
In my mind, gay pride parades do not serve this purpose: they accentuate difference, while egalitarian approach implies recognition of similarity.
Unfortunately, in the real life the things differ. Some bigots bash and even kill gays for no reasons, and some people make political and professional careers on their protection. Gay rights activists (including these that are straight themselves) and gay bashers, it seems, cannot exist without each other.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 09:58 am
I think gay rights activists would be very, very happy if their job became obsolete.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:03 am
Not all of them, but these that really care of gays. The others will find themselves unemployed, and I am not sure that they have enough skills for finding another high-paid and physically easy jobs. Ah, sorry, forgot, they may switch to patronizing Palestinians.
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:10 am
Yep, gay rights activists are just rolling in dough.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:13 am
I did not say this. But they do not work in the GM assembly lines for minimal wages either.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Reply
Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:48 am
A gay rights activist is, of course, fulfilling the same function as another person fighting for the right of black people to sit anywhere on the bus they want, or for Jewish people to be able to join a country club in Dallas. Activism becomes no longer needed or evidenced only when the inequality is gone.