Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Gay Rights 39

Journal by pudge

Discrimination against people because of what group they belong to is, in the general sense, wrong.

However, it is also wrong to tell people that such discrimination is illegal. If I want to be a jerk and discriminate, it is my right to do so, and it is your right to avoid my place of business.

However, because of a serious problem of past injustices in society, there's room for a temporary remedy of making discrimination against people in certain groups illegal, especially, but not limited to, blacks and women.

However, that does not mean the proper remedy for resolving all problems of discrimination is to make that discrimination illegal.

So, I am therefore opposed to anti-discrimination laws regarding homosexuals (and so on). I do not believe there is sufficient need for a law to solve the problems of discrimination against gays, when it can be more properly addressed through other means, including protesting and so on.

That said, I am open to consideration of the idea. If it can be shown to me that the problem is so serious, the injustices on a society-wide basis so severe, that a law against it is the only feasible remedy, then I may change my mind.

However, none of that has anything to do with why I am absolutely against the new law in Washington, H.B. 2661. This bill adds to the list of protected characteristics of people -- characteristics you may not discriminate against in employment or housing etc., which currently includes sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, and disabilities -- "sexual orientation."

At first glance, apart from my prior objection that I don't feel it is warranted, this is not a big deal. It does not apply to sectarian organizations, so in theory, few people would be affected by it anyway. You just can't discriminate against someone because they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. No big deal.

But the devil is in the details. So we have to look up our definitions:

"Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity.

OK, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, I'm with you. Wait ... what the hell is "gender expression or identity"?

As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.

So here's where the train goes off the tracks. I am not going to not-hire a waiter because they are gay, but I sure as hell am going to not hire a 6-2, 250-pound man named Buck who wears a dress and lipstick, talks with a falsetto, and has an extremely effeminate walk and gestures.

I am not saying I should be able to cause harm to Buck, but I don't want to scare my customers away either. Under previous laws, I could reject him simply because I thought it was not good for my business. But under this law, "what is not good for my business" is indistinguishable from his "gender expression," which is now protected by law.

This bill opens me up to serious liability if I discriminate against Buck. There's no indication in the text of the law that I would not be violating the law by discriminating against him, and there's no indication from our state courts that they would find in my favor.

Of course, in a restaurant, I could simply impose a dress code on all employees: slacks for everyone, no makeup. But that doesn't take care of his falsetto, walk, and gestures. He is going to scare away my customers, and there's not a damned thing I can do about it.

Call me a bigot if you want to, but I am against this bill, and I am signing the petition to overturn it, and will encourage everyone else in Washington to do so.

Now Playing: Johnny Cash - Sam Hall

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gay Rights More

Gay Rights

Comments Filter:

  • I dunno (Score:2)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) *
    Just like hiring women waitresses with beards, he might actually attract more business :-)

    Anyway, I just want to clarify: you say you oppose this law because it would force businesses (specifically restaurants) to hire particular people who "might" scare away customers (I put might in quotations since there is no proof that I know of that proves the behavior you describe would scare off more customers than it might draw in. I am not saying you are wrong, but I know of no proof either way. Regardless it woul

    • Anyway, I just want to clarify: you say you oppose this law because it would force businesses (specifically restaurants)

      Not specifically, no. That's just an example.

      to hire particular people who "might" scare away customers (I put might in quotations since there is no proof that I know of that proves the behavior you describe would scare off more customers than it might draw in.

      No, I am not saying that at all. The government has absolutely no business trying to weigh a business's opportunities like that.
    • Yeah. What if a guy just has a high voice or other traits that an employer identifies as effeminate and wrongly thinks the guy is gay and fires him for that. I know of a couple of guys that are totally straight, but very "metrosexual." More than once, people thought they were gay and discriminated against them based on those assumptions.

      What about "butch" women, Pudge? I put it in quotes for a reason. There are plenty of women with short hair that wear no makeup that may come across as stereotypically
      • Yeah. What if a guy just has a high voice or other traits that an employer identifies as effeminate and wrongly thinks the guy is gay and fires him for that.

        I don't understand the question. What if ... ?

        What about "butch" women, Pudge?

        What about them?

        I find it interesting that you immediately keyed in on a male with female gender traits than on a female with male gender traits.

        You shouldn't.

        Why is that?

        For the same reason I picked a restaurant waiter instead of a bank teller. I just needed one example, an
        • >>What about "butch" women, Pudge?

          >What about them?

          I guess I was wondering if you saw a problem with that or is it more socially acceptable (women wearing pants, having short hair and so forth).

          I am just curious. Whenever I hear these types of arguments, the burly guy in a dress is always trotted out. I just wonder why that is and thought you may have some insight.

          • I guess I was wondering if you saw a problem with that or is it more socially acceptable (women wearing pants, having short hair and so forth).

            This has nothing to do with me. If you are a business owner and you don't think butch women as employees will be good for your business, you should have the right to not hire them, or fire them.

            I am just curious. Whenever I hear these types of arguments, the burly guy in a dress is always trotted out. I just wonder why that is and thought you may have some insight.

            I

  • I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. I live and work in an extremely diverse environment (NYC) and personally believe that being exposed to the sheer variety of people with different life choices and experiences is enriching. On the other hand, like you, I'm troubled by government interference in private business, even to further goals which I might support.

    What is your opinion on "public accomodation" laws? Is there a sufficient public interest to warrant that retail establishments, be they h

    • I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. I live and work in an extremely diverse environment (NYC) and personally believe that being exposed to the sheer variety of people with different life choices and experiences is enriching. On the other hand, like you, I'm troubled by government interference in private business, even to further goals which I might support.

      Right. I value Christianity, but would be aghast at the government forcing people to go to church. Just because I personally believe that som

      • Or legal prohibitions against red-lining? I don't know what that is.

        FYI pudge, from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

        Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as banking or insurance, to residents of certain areas. In the United States, the practice is illegal when the criteria are based on race, religion, gender, familial status (if there are children in a family), disability, or ethnic origin. The US Government has imposed regulations that require all banks to provide a map to anyone w

        • Redlining is the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services, such as banking or insurance, to residents of certain areas. In the United States, the practice is illegal when the criteria are based on race, religion, gender, familial status (if there are children in a family), disability, or ethnic origin.

          I have absolutely no problem with making insurance cost more for ANY group of people, if there is a verified and true link between that group of people, and increased costs to the insurance compa
          • You can't just say "gay people" or "black people" cost more, if there are environmental factors that are more dominant.

            But you can otherwise?

            FTJ: ...-- characteristics you may not discriminate against in employment or housing etc., which currently includes sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, and disabilities --... emphasis mine

            Yet we still maintain the border patrol :-)
            • FTJ: ...-- characteristics you may not discriminate against in employment or housing etc., which currently includes sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, and disabilities --... emphasis mine

              Yet we still maintain the border patrol :-)

              Obviously national origin is separate from legal status. The status of illegal alien should automatically exclude someone from being hired.

              I can't discriminate based on which nation a person legally came from.
            • But you can otherwise?

              Perhaps. There are very few cases we know of that are linked to race alone. Sickle cell anemia is one, and if it cost a huge amount of money to deal with, then it would not be unfair to make people in the high risk category for it pay more.

              Thankfully, this particular disease is not a huge financial burden. And I cannot think of any other race-based examples.

              For women, it's a bit different: women only cost more because they have the bulk of the biological burden of the species, so in
              • Without getting to the morality of discrimination, better wording could be "national ancestry". And I don't care for laws that require an understanding whether something is implicit or not. That can lead to various interpretations that might have nothing to do with said law and could be entirely contradictory. This should be avoided by spelling it out exactly. The law should be about facts, not opinions. The First Amendment is my favorite example. The courts are allowing "implicit" restrictions on free spee
                • Without getting to the morality of discrimination

                  Are you implying there was something immoral about what I said? I can't fathom what that could be.

                  better wording could be "national ancestry"

                  I don't know what you mean by "better." Do you mean that is what you wish the law said, instead of what it actually says?

                  I was not talking about the law anyway, when I said that, obviously: I was talking about what I think is right. I think it's pretty clear from the law that what I said is not legal.

                  And I don't care
                  • I don't know what you mean by "better."

                    Less ambiguous? National origin, to me, means where you are from. It can include those not even in the country yet. Not necessarily who your parents are.

                    Are you implying there was something immoral about what I said?

                    Discrimination based on national origin simply because of one's presence in a certain location(the right* to travel uninhibited, not in the constitution, but still exists) is immoral. Every bit as much as discrimination based on sex, religion, race, etc. We
                    • Discrimination based on national origin simply because of one's presence in a certain location (the right* to travel uninhibited, not in the constitution, but still exists) is immoral.

                      I don't understand what "simply because of one's presence in a certain location" means.

                      Every bit as much as discrimination based on sex, religion, race, etc.

                      I see nothing immoral about discrimination based on any of those things. Can you be more specific about why you think it is immoral? I discriminated against men when I c
                    • Ah, but in truth it does just that, and they should've been more careful.

                      False. In truth, it does no such thing, because a law must be understood in its context. You are applying an incorrect method of legal interpretation, and then saying that the law means something it never did.

                      Where?? Where is it written?? I'm looking at it right now.

                      And you are also misinterpreting what I wrote: I was talking about how they had restrictions on free speech at the time they passed the First Amendment, not that the Firs
                    • I believe that national borders are immoral

                      Uhhhhhhh. Wow. I have no idea how anyone could possibly think such a think.

                      I'll tell you how. Someone could think that allowing people in the third world to suffer miserable lives is immoral. Since national borders are used to prevent the alleviation of their suffering, those too are immoral.
                    • I'll tell you how. Someone could think that allowing people in the third world to suffer miserable lives is immoral. Since national borders are used to prevent the alleviation of their suffering, those too are immoral.

                      Even if the assumption is true that national borders are used to prevent the alleviation of suffering, it does not follow that the suffering cannot be alleviated in other ways, and therefore this remains an illogical conclusion.
                    • I don't understand what "simply because of one's presence in a certain location" means.

                      "Simply because you are here."

                      Discrimination is not immoral.

                      No, not always. But if you want to operate a business, open to the public, then you must serve all the public. You can't pick and choose. It's a law we have on the books, and it's a good law. If you want to hire employees, then you must decide on performacne and presentation(with the exception of small family businesses that hire only members of the family). Not
                    • "Simply because you are here."

                      And ... ? What does that mean, in the context? You cannot discriminate against someone who is NOT "here," wherever that is. And no one is discriminated against simply for being somewhere, they are discriminated against because of who they are, not just where they are.

                      No, not always. But if you want to operate a business, open to the public, then you must serve all the public.

                      False.

                      You can't pick and choose.

                      Yes, you can.

                      It's a law we have on the books

                      No, it is not. You are v
                    • I have every right to discriminate in whom I serve, *except* for a very few cases, mostly having to do with age/sex/race/nationality.

                      It is within that context that I'm working. Or wasn't I implicit enough?

                      But there's nothing in the law that says I cannot discriminate against Stryper fans, and it is in fact my legal right to do that.

                      Good way to twist the arguement!

                      (modulo, in WA, this new law that is specific to gender identity; but I can still discriminate against them for liking the NBA)

                      And this is why I w
                    • It's not always about allowing them to suffer. Frequently it's the meddling by outsiders, like the US/Europe, that makes them suffer. Like the proping up of dictators like Saddam, Pinoche, Noriega, Somoza, Marcos, etc, etc, etc. Then the plunderers wonder why they have this flood of immigrants, or why everybody hates them. But then, the peons don't give a damn as long as life inside the empire remains so grand. Who cares what's happening outside the walls? It's good to be king. Borders are meaningingless to
                    • It's not always about allowing them to suffer. Frequently it's the meddling by outsiders, like the US/Europe, that makes them suffer.

                      That has nothing to do with the morality of national borders, so ... so what?

                      Since cars are used to kill people, cars are evil! Also spoons. And nylon stockings.
                    • Well in the context of his post, you might find it has plenty to do with the immorality of borders. It might be possible, I can't tell for sure, that he understands that borders are merely a tool to maintain the disparities I already mentioned. That, or he, too thinks I'm a fool for divulging such outlandish ideas. No matter. The discussion at hand has given me great pleasure. I've already stated that a person has a right to go and live where he pleases. It is immoral to deny him that right. More like ammor
                    • Cars have good uses. So do guns (yes people kill people, not guns).

                      How about Chinese foot binding? (was there any other kind?) It significantly harmed women while some men found it superficially attractive. I do find foot binding immoral.

                      As for borders, I was merely enlightening Pudge. The complete rationale I gave is not my personal stance.
                    • Cars have good uses.

                      Of course they do. I would never say they don't. But we shouldn't let humans operate anything but the radio and the climate control. I hope some day to see them be as simple to operate as an elevator. There is no reason why we can't make it that way.

                      So do guns (yes people kill people, not guns)

                      I was going to mention that, but then I thought, 'Aw, screw it.'

                      As for borders, I was merely enlightening Pudge. The complete rationale I gave is not my personal stance.

                      I figured as much. Very few
                    • Well in the context of his post, you might find it has plenty to do with the immorality of borders.

                      Nope.

                      It might be possible, I can't tell for sure, that he understands that borders are merely a tool to maintain the disparities I already mentioned.

                      That is not the main reason for those borders. And the evils caused by not having borders -- basically, a complete lack of security and basic civil rights -- are far greater evils than the disparities you mentioned.

                      I've already stated that a person has a right to
                    • Of course they do. I would never say they don't. But we shouldn't let humans operate anything but the radio and the climate control. I hope some day to see them be as simple to operate as an elevator. There is no reason why we can't make it that way.

                      Wow. You are a complete and total fascist. You want to tell me what I cannot do, what I must do, and how I should feel about doing it.

                      Very few people even try to understand that borders do absolutely nothing towards human betterment.

                      That's because it is not re
                    • It is within that context that I'm working. Or wasn't I implicit enough?

                      You are incorrect. You were explicitly NOT in that context. You said "you must serve all the public."

                      Good way to twist the arguement! (sic)

                      Um, you said "all the public."

                      And this is why I would push for a law that demands that you give a valid reason for firing someone. This must not be permitted.

                      You're a damned fascist.

                      The scary thing is that you probably don't even realize that you are one of the biggest fascists around. You want t
                    • You're a damned fascist.

                      :-) Well, since you voted one into the white house, I'll consider that a compliment. All I want is a fair balance of power. Since we can't afford to buy off the legislature that keeps getting re-elected by people who don't give a damn, we just have to use other methods. Your brand of fascism(as you like to call it) is just working for the other side. Well, nice to meet you Mr. Pot. My name is Kettle.

                      You want to use force to micromanage how everyone acts, what they are allowed to do,
                    • Wow. You are a complete and total fascist.

                      You really like throwing that around a lot. So, saving up to 30,000 lives a year is fascist...Fascinating. Cars are dangerous devices in the hands of an inept, or angry, or drunk driver. That would be about 60-80% of the time. Automation is possible, and desirable. If you want to operate your car, do it on the track. If you want to shoot your gun, do it on the range. Same concept. You don't have a right to endanger other people. Your mind is so cluttered with tiny d
                    • Well, since you voted one into the white house, I'll consider that a compliment.

                      Since you incorrectly think the Patriot Act -- which, by the way, both parties supported, strongly -- represents fascism, your opinion on this matter is duly ignored.

                      All I want is a fair balance of power.

                      What you want is to use the force of government -- how this could be possible without national borders, I do not know -- to disallow me from exercising my right to association, my right to drive a car, and so on. These notions
                    • You really like throwing that around a lot.

                      No, I do not. It is depressing.

                      So, saving up to 30,000 lives a year is fascist...Fascinating.

                      If you use authoritarian methods to save those lives, yes, of course it is. Absolutely.

                      Automation is possible, and desirable. If you want to operate your car, do it on the track. If you want to shoot your gun, do it on the range. Same concept.

                      Right. And that concept is fascism.

                      You don't have a right to endanger other people.

                      And YOU do not have the right to take away my r
                    • If you use authoritarian methods to save those lives, yes, of course it is. Absolutely.

                      Well then let's throw out all traffic laws becasue they're authoritarian. I wanna drive through a red light, on the wrong side of the road, in a school zone at 80mph...backwards...blasting a 120db air horn.

                      And YOU do not have the right to take away my rights just because I might possibly endanger someone else.

                      So, driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a right? Or even being intoxicated in public? Threatening
                    • Well then let's throw out all traffic laws becasue they're authoritarian.

                      Well then let's make non sequiturs because we're stupid!

                      So, driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a right?

                      Again with the irrational arguments. If you are intoxicated, you are by definition incapable of properly handling a motor vehicle. That is what it MEANS. All the rest of what you say follows the same illogical pattern.

                      You don't have a right to operate an airplane without being qualified and a willingness to obey ru
  • So here's where the train goes off the tracks. I am not going to not-hire a waiter because they are gay, but I sure as hell am going to not hire a 6-2, 250-pound man named Buck who wears a dress and lipstick, talks with a falsetto, and has an extremely effeminate walk and gestures.

    What if a person "passes" as the member of the opposite sex, at least well enough that it's not a problem for business until the business owner finds out the employee's "little secret"? What protection(s) would the person have,
    • What if a person "passes" as the member of the opposite sex, at least well enough that it's not a problem for business until the business owner finds out the employee's "little secret"? What protection(s) would the person have, if appearance was not a factor, and the only thing that was a factor wasn't visible?

      Ideally, none. Employment should be, for both parties, at-will.

      But that's beside the point here, which is that expression of "gender identity" is what is specifically protected, and what I am specifi

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close