The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Strong history of bigotry against that class in particular?

 

Can you draw a distinction for why you'd be against protections for being fired for being LGBT but would support protections for being fired based on race or religion?

 

Strong HISTORY, but not really a current problem anymore than the other types of people out there who suffer from discrimination but aren't protected either.

[Jenksismyhero]

What you're saying is that you support being able to fire someone for being gay or being able to refuse them service in a public business for being gay. You're more concerned about potential extra lawsuits than the impact those actions would have. You'll trivialize homophobic discrimination and pretend it's just like being "anti-white sox." You'll then extend the idea that LGBT should be protected from bigotry to meaning that literally everything should be a protected class and that business should have zero hiring/firing power, doing a fantastic job of knocking down strawmen instead of justifying your indifference-at-best towards the anti-LGBT discrimination that is alive and well in this country.

 

Ignore my lawsuit comment. That's not really a concern in this. I'm just pointing out that in general I hate additional laws when they're not needed.

 

And sorry, I don't see gays being some discriminated group to the extent it warrants protection. Marriage you have a point but that's a separate issue. You can point to history, but so can other groups that experienced and continue to experience discrimination.

 

It makes no sense that as an owner of a business I can fire you because you smell bad or that you just piss me off one day but I can't if I don't want to work with you because you're gay. It's just one of a million characteristics that can be liked or disliked. If it was a national problem where gays were being denied employment or denied entry in droves, i'd have a different opinion. But you and I both know that's not reality.

 

[StrangeSox]

Strong HISTORY, but not really a current problem anymore than the other types of people out there who suffer from discrimination but aren't protected either.

 

I don't know why you keep saying that when:

 

1) A strong majority of states still do not have SSM, and many have constitutional bans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_co...d_on_amendments

 

2) This sort of discrimination obviously still exists, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits over it and pushes to get LGBT included as a federally protected class

 

3) Multiple states have passed "religious conscious" bills that exclude anti-LGBT bigotry from bullying laws

 

4) A state legislature just passed a law to explicitly legalize anti-LGBT discrimination.

 

You're really just making a fool out of yourself when you insist it's "not really a current problem anymore."

[StrangeSox]

Ignore my lawsuit comment. That's not really a concern in this. I'm just pointing out that in general I hate additional laws when they're not needed.

 

So why is this Kansas law necessary? It's an additional law that you seem a-ok with.

 

And sorry, I don't see gays being some discriminated group to the extent it warrants protection. Marriage you have a point but that's a separate issue. You can point to history, but so can other groups that experienced and continue to experience discrimination.

 

Your personal blindness to anti-LGBT bigotry is your problem, but it's not justification for opposition to protection from anti-LGBT bigotry.

 

And why is SSM a separate issue? It demonstrates that anti-LGBT bigotry is alive and well.

 

It makes no sense that as an owner of a business I can fire you because you smell bad or that you just piss me off one day but I can't if I don't want to work with you because you're gay. It's just one of a million characteristics that can be liked or disliked. If it was a national problem where gays were being denied employment or denied entry in droves, i'd have a different opinion. But you and I both know that's not reality.

 

I think it's s***ty that businesses can do those things as well. If you can't run a business without firing or refusing service to someone because they're gay, I don't see why you should have any right to run a business.

 

Again, your ignorance of anti-LGBT bigotry is your personal problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd like to know the number of gays who are fired for being gay and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason. Show me the numbers that gay people are denied entry into businesses compared to others. Show me the numbers proving this and I'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I'd like to know the number of gays who are fired for being gay and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason. Show me the numbers that gay people are denied entry into businesses compared to others. Show me the numbers proving this and I'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

 

Show me the number of racial minorities who are fired for being a racial minority and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason.

[cabiness42]

Show me the number of racial minorities who are fired for being a racial minority and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason.

 

Can we include whites who get fired/passed over for promotions because the minority is threatening a lawsuit???

 

[StrangeSox]

Are we really throwing "whites are the real victim of racism" on top of turning a blind eye to LGBT discrimination?

[Jenksismyhero]

So why is this Kansas law necessary? It's an additional law that you seem a-ok with.

 

 

 

Your personal blindness to anti-LGBT bigotry is your problem, but it's not justification for opposition to protection from anti-LGBT bigotry.

 

And why is SSM a separate issue? It demonstrates that anti-LGBT bigotry is alive and well.

 

 

 

I think it's s***ty that businesses can do those things as well. If you can't run a business without firing or refusing service to someone because they're gay, I don't see why you should have any right to run a business.

 

Again, your ignorance of anti-LGBT bigotry is your personal problem.

 

Well, you're right, I don't think it's necessary. But I don't think SYG laws are really necessary either when you have self defense laws already in place. But they want clarification on it, so whatever. That's up to that state to do so.

 

[Balta1701]

I really wish I could say that the last 2 pages of this thread were a nightmare and I didn't actually read it.

[StrangeSox]

I really wish I could say that the last 2 pages of this thread were a nightmare and I didn't actually read it.

Listen, Balta, the PC police have guaranteed that all forms of anti-LGBT bigotry get stamped out, which is why we're sure to see a big Democratic wave in Kansas in the next elections. Also, even though the PC police have been so viciously effective over the last few decades, it's still cool (and common?) to make fun of, fire, and refuse service to people for being ugly, fat, or stupid. This makes sense because

[cabiness42]

Are we really throwing "whites are the real victim of racism" on top of turning a blind eye to LGBT discrimination?

 

No, because I'm not the one defending LGBT discrimination and I don't condone it, but I do want to point out that the laws that protect classes that have historically been discriminated against, have been abused to the point that people outside those classes often get screwed.

[StrangeSox]

That's basically a "whites are the real victim of racial discrimination these days" argument, which is hilarious for terrible reasons.

[cabiness42]

That's basically a "whites are the real victim of racial discrimination these days" argument, which is hilarious for terrible reasons.

 

I guess it's hilarious if it's never happened to you--three times.

[Jenksismyhero]

For the record, i'm not defending gay discrimination. I'm defending all discrimination. Which everyone does everyday.

[Jenksismyhero]

I guess it's hilarious if it's never happened to you--three times.

 

Sorry, history says you're the least oppressed class, so your problems don't matter. Let's please focus on the REAL victims.

[StrangeSox]

Man white people just have it so tough these days. I bet if you looked at employment, income and wealth statistics or numerous studies on hiring practices, you'd find evidence of systemic anti-white racism.

[cabiness42]

Man white people just have it so tough these days. I bet if you looked at employment, income and wealth statistics or numerous studies on hiring practices, you'd find evidence of systemic anti-white racism.

 

So discrimination against one person is fine so long as it isn't systemic?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Man white people just have it so tough these days. I bet if you looked at employment, income and wealth statistics or numerous studies on hiring practices, you'd find evidence of systemic anti-white racism.

 

You're literally poo-pooing away a guy complaining about ACTUAL reverse discrimination results that he was personally subjected to. And I'm the blind one?

[StrangeSox]

I'm ridiculing the idea that white people have it tough these days and are the real victims of racial discrimination because various unnamed "laws that protect classes that have historically been discriminated against have been abused."

[Jenksismyhero]

So discrimination against one person is fine so long as it isn't systemic?

 

If you were a gay white man he would have supported you.

[cabiness42]

I'm ridiculing the idea that white people have it tough these days and are the real victims of racial discrimination because various unnamed "laws that protect classes that have historically been discriminated against have been abused."

 

I'm not talking about white people as a group. I'm talking about me. I've been a victim of reverse discrimination, because minorities have an incredibly low burden of proof to prove that they have been discriminated against, and thus I can't get a promotion any time there is any minority eligible, regardless of individual qualifications, because there is no budget to fight lawsuits. But nobody has the balls to say that this isn't right, because it somehow implies something negative about minorities.

Edited February 13, 2014 by HickoryHuskers

[StrangeSox]

If you were a gay white man he would have supported you.

Wait I thought you were okay with discrimination? Why should you care if HH was allegedly fired/passed over because someone in a protected class threatened a lawsuit? The Market will correct this.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not talking about white people as a group. I'm talking about me. I've been a victim of reverse discrimination, because minorities have an incredibly low burden of proof to prove that they have been discriminated against,

 

Do you have any sort of citation for that? My understanding is that discrimination lawsuits are actually pretty damn hard to win.

 

and thus I can't get a promotion any time there is any minority eligible, regardless of individual qualifications, because there is no budget to fight lawsuits. But nobody has the balls to say that this isn't right, because it somehow implies something negative about minorities.

 

Don't worry, jenks has assured me that The Market will correct this discrimination!

 

But, I wonder, how does your claim that minorities get all the promotions square with actual data on income, hiring, promotions, etc. more broadly? As far as I can tell, minorities are still heavily underrepresented as you move up the career and income ladders. If the burden of proof really is so low and nobody wants to fight lawsuits (there's always lawsuits?), wouldn't we see a lot more minorities actually getting promotions?

[cabiness42]

Wait I thought you were okay with discrimination? Why should you care if HH was allegedly fired/passed over because someone in a protected class threatened a lawsuit? The Market will correct this.

 

The "Market" would correct this because in the "Market" they wouldn't be allowed to file a complaint in the first place.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against anti-discrimination laws, but the standard for proving discrimination is way too low, and there are no protections for people who are actually earning positions/promotions and then having them yanked away via frivolous discrimination claims.