Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[StrangeSox]

Do you have better examples?

 

Preferably, these classes of people should have a history of persecution and discrimination.

 

[StrangeSox]

 

 

Why aren't those enough? Forcing someone to buy 2 plane tickets isn't applicable here. And it's not a complicated issue as-is. I'm an employer. You're either an applicant or an existing employee. You're overweight, bald, or simply unattractive, and I decide I don't like that. It doesn't affect your performance. It doesn't affect how you could possible do the job. I just don't like it. Legally I can fire you and/or decide not to hire you for that very reason, and there's nothing you can do about it. No laws protect you. But if you're gay, I cannot. What's the difference exactly? IMO both are physical and/or mental traits that you cannot control. I'm asking why society decided to legally designate one group a special class, and force people to act a certain way towards that class, but not for the others. Is it simply the history of discrimination? If so I think "unattractive" people have a pretty good claim of being screwed over. Same with the obese.

 

Maybe it's the centuries of persecution and outright hatred of them from a large portion of the population?

 

You could make the same argument for other protected classes like race or gender and it'd be equally wrong.

 

When was the last time someone was beaten to death or disowned by their family for being fat, bald and ugly?

[NorthSideSox72]

So long as they never say why, no they cannot be. It would be impossible to prove that's the reason, since the at-will law protects them in simply saying, "we were cutting back", or "we felt like it", without citing the actual illegal reason, even if it was the true reason.

 

You would literally have to get them to say that, or be able to prove that is why...which is nearly impossible.

 

They can still be sued, sometimes successfuly, as noted earlier.

 

Right, and I'm saying that somehow sexuality got thrown in there despite being nothing more than a physical and/or mental trait that's no different than being genetically prone to being overweight, or having red hair or being bald or whatever. It's something beyond your control. I want to know why it's different. I get that gays as a group have been discriminated against, and that's why they were thrown into EE protection, but so are fat people. Where's the outcry for that?

 

And Bigsqwert, you can call me a bigot all you want, but you're blind if you don't think members of the gay community want more than just equality. They want people to not only accept the fact that they're gay, but like it and agree with it. By calling me a bigot and my opinions stupid you've just proven that point.

 

There are members of orientation, religion, or racial classes of all kinds that want special treatment. But most don't. So honestly, this is a non-issue to me, as its a level playing field across those protected classes. And level playing field is something the law can and does strive for.

 

As long as we're all being blunt here... if you are choosing to characterize all gay people by the behavior of some minority of them, but choosing NOT to do so for other groups, then not only are you unfairly stereotyping, but you are being hypocritical and that is obviously motivated by some sort of bias. That bias might be created by your own personal experiences, I do not know, but its still bias.

 

I'm perfectly OK with gays being a protected class in these cases, because they meet the two conditions I feel make it appropriate. One, the property of that class is not related to job performance, and therefore is an invalid reason for altering employment. Two, they are a class of people historically, and to some degree currently, unfairly and repugnantly treated poorly for purely that reason. Therefore, they deserve protection for equality (not being persecuted professionally or otherwise) - not special treatment (i.e. affirmative action, which I am firmly against).

 

 

[Y2HH]

They can still be sued, sometimes successfuly, as noted earlier.

 

You can sue anyone at anytime you want...more often than not, these result in nothing other than lawyer fees and a lost case. You need sufficient evidence regardless of what kind of lawsuit. Sure, you can sue your employer if they fire you and say they fired me for "X", but proving X is usually harder than it sounds, especially in these sorts of cases.

[NorthSideSox72]

You can sue anyone at anytime you want...more often than not, these result in nothing other than lawyer fees and a lost case. You need sufficient evidence regardless of what kind of lawsuit. Sure, you can sue your employer if they fire you and say they fired me for "X", but proving X is usually harder than it sounds, especially in these sorts of cases.

The salient point here is, because the laws exist, that means a victim has a chance to file civil suit and possibly succeed. That is very important to note, and you incorrectly stated they can't sue. Even if only a small number actually make it to court AND win, a lot of other cases are settled out of court, which is still a remedy for a victim. So the ability to sue at all, and make it past the first procedural hurdles (legal grounds, frivilous checks), is in itself an inherent value in the law as it stands.

 

 

[Y2HH]

The salient point here is, because the laws exist, that means a victim has a chance to file civil suit and possibly succeed. That is very important to note, and you incorrectly stated they can't sue. Even if only a small number actually make it to court AND win, a lot of other cases are settled out of court, which is still a remedy for a victim. So the ability to sue at all, and make it past the first procedural hurdles (legal grounds, frivilous checks), is in itself an inherent value in the law as it stands.

 

Well, I didn't mean they can't file a lawsuit (as anyone can, for any reason, at any time)...but they can't just "sue and win", which is what you're making it sound like.

 

They lose these cases more than often than they win them.

 

Only evidence I have of that is asking company lawyers from here and another business that I know -- they say out of such lawsuits filed, maybe 5% are legit cases over a decade span of time. But this is merely what I hear.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Y2HH

[Rex Kickass]

You are seriously delusional.

 

That's not cool and uncalled for. He is expressing an opinion that is frankly not that offensive. It's not a crazy stereotype, its an analysis on a community's political agenda. Whether you agree with it or not, I personally don't, is beside the point. This kind of name calling is not cool. Please stop.

[bmags]

Well, I didn't mean they can't file a lawsuit...but they can't just "sue and win", which is what you're making it sound like.

 

They lose these cases more than often than they win them.

 

if the company actually takes the case to court, it means they probably have a good chance of winning it. They'll probably settle far before then.

[Jenksismyhero]

They can still be sued, sometimes successfuly, as noted earlier.

 

 

 

There are members of orientation, religion, or racial classes of all kinds that want special treatment. But most don't. So honestly, this is a non-issue to me, as its a level playing field across those protected classes. And level playing field is something the law can and does strive for.

 

As long as we're all being blunt here... if you are choosing to characterize all gay people by the behavior of some minority of them, but choosing NOT to do so for other groups, then not only are you unfairly stereotyping, but you are being hypocritical and that is obviously motivated by some sort of bias. That bias might be created by your own personal experiences, I do not know, but its still bias.

 

I'm perfectly OK with gays being a protected class in these cases, because they meet the two conditions I feel make it appropriate. One, the property of that class is not related to job performance, and therefore is an invalid reason for altering employment. Two, they are a class of people historically, and to some degree currently, unfairly and repugnantly treated poorly for purely that reason. Therefore, they deserve protection for equality (not being persecuted professionally or otherwise) - not special treatment (i.e. affirmative action, which I am firmly against).

 

I don't really have a bias, i'm just curious how far people are willing to extend these "protections." And i'm not characterizing ALL gay people as that. I'm sure the vast majority are content living their lives and not being outspoken about how they think people should feel about them. But you can't deny that there's a pretty loud segment that appear to want more than just equality. They want to be treated equal (totally valid and fair and I agree), but they also want people to view their lifestyle as normal and natural. That's where I disagree. I'm 100% for people's rights to do whatever they want in life in this respect, and the government shouldn't play any part in it. But I just can't go that far. Nor do I think that government should be involved in that either. Sometimes I think these protections do that. Colorado a few years back had a state vote on legislation which basically said equality laws ok, but preferential laws are not ok. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do that.

 

Edit: and I don't mean to say "normal" or "natural" with any sort of right/wrong or moral connection

Edited December 22, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[BigSqwert]

I don't really have a bias, i'm just curious how far people are willing to extend these "protections." And i'm not characterizing ALL gay people as that. I'm sure the vast majority are content living their lives and not being outspoken about how they think people should feel about them. But you can't deny that there's a pretty loud segment that appear to want more than just equality. They want to be treated equal (totally valid and fair and I agree), but they also want people to view their lifestyle as normal and natural. That's where I disagree. I'm 100% for people's rights to do whatever they want in life in this respect, and the government shouldn't play any part in it. But I just can't go that far. Nor do I think that government should be involved in that either. Sometimes I think these protections do that. Colorado a few years back had a state vote on legislation which basically said equality laws ok, but preferential laws are not ok. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do that.

 

Cite some examples of this for us please. And how exactly can someone make you like something?

Edited December 22, 2010 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Edit: and I don't mean to say "normal" or "natural" with any sort of right/wrong or moral connection

 

Then what connection are you trying to make? Your statement seems to imply that you feel it's not normal or natural.

Edited December 22, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Y2HH]

That's a pretty terrible argument. Gay bars exist as a place for gays to go hang out and meet other gays, not to force people to accept them. Just like any other business catering to a specific demographic.

 

I think it's a pretty legit argument, even if you don't. It shows purposed segregation of their own doing, IE, creating gay bars, but when society looks at them differently, they ask why. I understand they're doing it to meet other gays...but you can do that in a regular bar, too...especially if you weren't creating sub sections of your own bar culture so gays are nowhere but those places.

[knightni]

Gay bars exist because of straight people.

If there wasn't the fear of being bludgeoned to death by accidentally "hitting on" a homophobic, gays wouldn't need their own bar.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, I didn't mean they can't file a lawsuit (as anyone can, for any reason, at any time)...but they can't just "sue and win", which is what you're making it sound like.

 

They lose these cases more than often than they win them.

 

Only evidence I have of that is asking company lawyers from here and another business that I know -- they say out of such lawsuits filed, maybe 5% are legit cases over a decade span of time. But this is merely what I hear.

You are doing what I see a lot of people do - dividing civil litigation into two categories, when it may be more complete to see three.

 

1. Anyone can sue for anything. This is true, but if they have no reasonable legal grounds, they will fail 100% of the time - so really it isn't a meaningful protection at this level.

 

2. Laws provide legal foundation for lawsuits. Even if the chances of winning in court are low, just having laws on the books that provide these steppings stones is, in itself, important. It not only gives them a chance in court, it also forces settlements and other remedies by those being sued to aid victims, and so this has immense value. This is the level people are missing.

 

3. People have well-founded and easily provable civil cases. This is the next level up, where they have a lot of leverage.

 

You want to reduce things to 1 and 3, but level 2 is of immense importance.

 

[Y2HH]

Gay bars exist because of straight people.

If there wasn't the fear of being bludgeoned to death by accidentally "hitting on" a homophobic, gays wouldn't need their own bar.

 

Unfortunately, you don't have to be gay to be bludgeoned to death in a bar by some idiot...it's one of the main reasons I rarely go to bars...too many idiots doing too many stupid things.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't really have a bias, i'm just curious how far people are willing to extend these "protections." And i'm not characterizing ALL gay people as that. I'm sure the vast majority are content living their lives and not being outspoken about how they think people should feel about them. But you can't deny that there's a pretty loud segment that appear to want more than just equality. They want to be treated equal (totally valid and fair and I agree), but they also want people to view their lifestyle as normal and natural. That's where I disagree. I'm 100% for people's rights to do whatever they want in life in this respect, and the government shouldn't play any part in it. But I just can't go that far. Nor do I think that government should be involved in that either. Sometimes I think these protections do that. Colorado a few years back had a state vote on legislation which basically said equality laws ok, but preferential laws are not ok. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do that.

 

Edit: and I don't mean to say "normal" or "natural" with any sort of right/wrong or moral connection

 

Well, that's because homosexuality is natural. I don't think my neighbors dogs learned being gay from the TV machines. As to normal? That's kind of a loaded word, its not normal because most people aren't gay. But neither are redheads normal either. Are we supposed to treat them differently because they have fair skin and red hair? No.

 

And there's a difference between a social political agenda and a policy political agenda. Do gay people want to be treated like regular members of society and not thought of differently (abnormal or unnatural) because they are gay? Absolutely. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think that's being more than equal. I'm sorry that you see it differently.

[Rex Kickass]

I think it's a pretty legit argument, even if you don't. It shows purposed segregation of their own doing, IE, creating gay bars, but when society looks at them differently, they ask why. I understand they're doing it to meet other gays...but you can do that in a regular bar, too...especially if you weren't creating sub sections of your own bar culture so gays are nowhere but those places.

 

The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars.

[bmags]

The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars.

 

disagree...uber hetero bars are found in lincoln park see: duffys.

 

there are then bars for regular folks.

[Y2HH]

The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars.

 

I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in.

 

This is just my opinion on the matter.

[StrangeSox]

The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars.

 

Right, gay bars are just catering to a subset of people. Just like hipster bars, dance clubs, piano bars, wine bars, biker bars, etc. People choosing to congregate and socialize within a similar group doesn't make it ok for outsiders to discriminate or denigrate that group, especially within a legal framework like DADT.

[StrangeSox]

I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in.

 

This is just my opinion on the matter.

 

The issue isn't about fitting in to societal norms.

 

edit: Think of it like this:

 

A black family choosing to move into a predominately black neighborhood isn't racist or exclusionary. A bank refusing to lend to a black family that wants to move into a white neighborhood or a Realtor refusing to show a black family houses in a white neighborhood is.

Edited December 22, 2010 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in.

 

This is just my opinion on the matter.

 

you realize you can go into gay bars, right?

[StrangeSox]

My friend is having her bachelorrete party in boys town.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then what connection are you trying to make? Your statement seems to imply that you feel it's not normal or natural.

 

That something that occurs in the small minority of situations isn't normal? 5% of the population in the US is gay. Say that number is really 10%. That still means 9 out of 10 times it's not the norm. That's my point. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that one way is preferred or not preferred, i'm just saying that's how it is. By definition it's not normal.

 

Same with evidence of homosexuality in nature. It's rare. It's not natural. In fact it's unnatural for a species to be homosexual as they would cease to exist.

[Y2HH]

you realize you can go into gay bars, right?

 

And they realize they can go into regular bars, right?

 

Sure, you can go into them, but should you?

 

If this is the case, why can't I create a "White bar" for white people who want to hang out with other white people? I mean, I wouldn't be banning black people or anything...but I guarantee it wouldn't fly...not for a second.