Sex-Orientation Discrimination Bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:33:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Sex-Orientation Discrimination Bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Poll
Question: How would you vote on it?
#1
Democrat -Aye
 
#2
Democrat -Nay
 
#3
Republican -Aye
 
#4
Republican -Nay
 
#5
independent/third party -Aye
 
#6
independent/third party -Nay
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 41

Author Topic: Sex-Orientation Discrimination Bill  (Read 5171 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 22, 2006, 04:09:26 PM »

Just recently, the Washington state House of Representatives passed HB 2661, which would extend the Law Against Discrimination to include sexual orientation in areas involving 'employment; places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement; commerce; and real estate, credit, and insurance transactions.'  It will be the duty of the Washington State Human Rights Commission to enforce this law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background:

LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Washington's Law Against Discrimination establishes that it is a civil right to be free from discrimination based on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal. This right applies to employment; places of public resort, accommodation, or amusement; commerce;
and real estate, credit, and insurance transactions.

To effectuate the right to be free from discrimination, the law defines certain practices as being unfair. For example, it is deemed to be an unfair practice to fire or to refuse to hire a person based on sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, the presence of any sensory or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal.

There are some exceptions to the Law Against Discrimination. For example, in the employment context, employers with fewer than eight employees and non-profit religious or sectarian organizations are exempt from these laws.

WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is responsible, in part, for administering and enforcing the Law Against Discrimination. The WSHRC receives and investigates complaints made by persons alleging unfair practices in violation of this law. If the WSHRC finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, it must first try to eliminate the unfair practice via conference and conciliation. If this process fails, the WSHRC must refer the matter to an administrative law judge who may, after a hearing on the matter, issue an order providing relief to the complainant.


Source: House Bill Report on HB 2661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the defection of a key Republican whose lone vote prevented the bill from becoming law last time, it is assured of passage in the state Senate also.

If you were a state legislator in either body, how would you have voted on this legislation?

 
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2006, 04:27:06 PM »

I would vote Nay. Private persons should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they please, for whatever reasons they choose. Discrimination may be "unfair," or even reprehensible, but it should certainly not be illegal.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2006, 04:28:39 PM »

I would vote Nay. Private persons should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they please, for whatever reasons they choose. Discrimination may be "unfair," or even reprehensible, but it should certainly not be illegal.

So you oppose the civil rights bill? Do you support the poll tax?
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2006, 04:31:27 PM »

So you oppose the civil rights bill?
If you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I don't, but how is the poll tax relevant?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2006, 06:53:49 PM »

I would vote Nay. Private persons should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they please, for whatever reasons they choose. Discrimination may be "unfair," or even reprehensible, but it should certainly not be illegal.

Agreed.  We should never make stupidity in and of itself illegal.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2006, 07:23:19 PM »

Aye and anyone who says nay should be forced to swim in a pool full of candiru fish
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2006, 07:59:59 PM »

I would support this bill.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2006, 08:40:11 PM »

I would vote yes.

Such a law has been in place in Minnesota for quite awhile.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2006, 08:42:11 PM »

I would vote against this fascist trash.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2006, 08:47:29 PM »

Yes.  If we're going to have laws against discrimination at all, they should not lack mention of sexual orientation.  It should be either all or nothing.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2006, 08:50:32 PM »

Why is all of a bad thing better than some of a bad thing?
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2006, 09:11:05 PM »

Aye and anyone who says nay should be forced to swim in a pool full of candiru fish

What? For wanting to preserve our Constitutional right to freedom of association?
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2006, 09:11:49 PM »

Nay. Illegalizing discrimination is the worst thing we've done in awhile in this country.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2006, 09:15:35 PM »

I'd vote nay, although I think a lot of the Republicans I would be joining support these roles for non-gay (especially the eastern Washington Republicans).
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2006, 10:32:01 PM »

Strongly support.

Obviously Emsworth, Jake, A18 and the others here have never experienced discrimination before, so they don't know what they're talking about.

What really bugs me is that every gay rights issue these days has to have marriage dragged into it. Hopefully thats not the case here.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2006, 10:34:40 PM »

I'd have to see the whole text of the bill to decide.  What's presented here seems uncontroversial, but I suspect there's more to it than what has been presented here if they've been having trouble getting it passed in a liberal state.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2006, 10:35:00 PM »

Obviously Emsworth, Jake, A18 and the others here have never experienced discrimination before, so they don't know what they're talking about.

Yes, of course.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2006, 10:38:01 PM »

Obviously Emsworth, Jake, A18 and the others here have never experienced discrimination before...

This is in no sense relevant.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're not talking about what it's like to be discriminated against, so your conclusion is in no sense supported by the earlier part of your sentence.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2006, 10:40:33 PM »

What's presented here seems uncontroversial...

Uncontroversial? I suppose among those who hate freedom, yes.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2006, 10:43:05 PM »

What's presented here seems uncontroversial...

Uncontroversial? I suppose among those who hate freedom, yes.

I mean, it doesn't really seem like anything not already covered in other laws.  Maybe I'm missing something.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2006, 10:45:18 PM »

What's presented here seems uncontroversial...

Uncontroversial? I suppose among those who hate freedom, yes.

I mean, it doesn't really seem like anything not already covered in other laws.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Other laws like what? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover all discrimination.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2006, 10:48:29 PM »

What's presented here seems uncontroversial...

Uncontroversial? I suppose among those who hate freedom, yes.

I mean, it doesn't really seem like anything not already covered in other laws.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Other laws like what? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not cover all discrimination.

Yes, that's true.  I really didn't read it that carefully, since I'm tired and about to hit the hay.  I'm surprised any 'rights' bill is having trouble getting passed in a liberal state like Washington.  There must be something controversial to it, even for blue-staters.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2006, 05:06:06 AM »

Here's my opinion, as someone who if American would be affected by this bill.

IF we have to have laws covering discrimination based on sex and race for example we should also have those laws extended to cover sexual orientation. However, if we abolished all laws relating to discrimination that could possibly be acceptable. Yet it is likely that such laws will remain in place for the forseeable future, so I would support the bill as a result.  I agree it is either 'all' or 'nothing.'
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2006, 05:07:28 AM »

I agree it is either 'all' or 'nothing.'

And yet you have not explained why that makes any sense. Why is more of a bad thing better than less of a bad thing?

If we outlaw one kind of speech, should we outlaw it all?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2006, 05:23:36 AM »

I agree it is either 'all' or 'nothing.'

And yet you have not explained why that makes any sense. Why is more of a bad thing better than less of a bad thing?

If we outlaw one kind of speech, should we outlaw it all?

What do you mean 'outlaw one kind of speech?' It's not about that, it is about ending 'discrimination' within the workplace and structures of employment. People can still have an anti-gay rant in the streets if they wish to. Why anyone would not hire someone simply because they were gay puzzles me, but it does happen.

I'm not a fan of laws like these, but there is no middle ground. You either include sexual orientation within discrimination laws or you have no laws at all IMO - all or nothing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.