Sex-Orientation Discrimination Bill

[A18]

It's an anology, genius. You don't get rid of all of a freedom just because it's been curtailed in a few ways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[afleitch]

If America, or any other western nation I might add, was mature enough to not hold someone back from a job because they did not like their sexuality, there would be no need for any such laws. Until attitudes change (and change they will) these laws will have to remain in place. So if they have to remain in place they may as well be consistent until such times as they are not needed. So once again - 'all or nothing.' You might not like my reasoning, but I don't have to explain it any more than I have done.

[A18]

Actually, you just abandoned your earlier assertion that these laws are bad. Obviously, if you think these laws are good, then I can understand. It was your earlier position that was insanely stupid, and I thank you for recanting it.

[afleitch]

Actually, you just abandoned your earlier assertion that these laws are bad. Obviously, if you think these laws are good, then I can understand. It was your earlier position that was insanely stupid, and I thank you for recanting it.

My assertion was that such laws are bad because they lack consistency in their application. Once again- you either bring them up to speed by including sexual orientation or you scrap the whole lot. But they never will be scrapped at least in the forseeable future, so you have to reach a concensus based on current opinion. My position is not 'insanely stupid' and I think your own argument would be more agreeable if you didn't resort to childish jarbs

[A18]

Your earlier position that these laws are bad, but that we need more of them is what was insanely stupid. I can understand your new position.

[afleitch]

Your earlier position that these laws are bad, but that we need more of them is what was insanely stupid. I can understand your new position.

In your mind it's a new position, but not in mine. If you don't agree it's fine by me.

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye - I'm vehemenently opposed to all forms of discrimination (and yes, I include affirmative action)

Dave

[opebo]

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

This is in no sense relevant.

Sure it is, Philip, as your views would change immediately upon a change in your interests.  If you were to be made a poor, you would become a socialist, and if you were to be made a black or a gay, you politics would no longer support discrimination.

[John Dibble]

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

This is in no sense relevant.

Sure it is, Philip, as your views would change immediately upon a change in your interests.  If you were to be made a poor, you would become a socialist, and if you were to be made a black or a gay, you politics would no longer support discrimination.

Opebo - Philip isn't you, he has these things called 'principles'.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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?

<_< No for being a homophobe.

[Speed of Sound]

I guess Im leaning towards support, but i really dont feel too great about discrimination laws in general, so im kinda neutral.

[MODU]

Terrible bill.  A perfect example of PC going too far.  People have the right to their opinion about people, and if they choose to discriminate, they can.  It doesn't mean it's fair, and the person being discriminated against, given that they have a justifiable case, could take the other person to court for compensation, but to make a bill that states everyone needs to hold hands and sing happy happy joy joy songs all day is rediculous.  Besides, all those women-only and black-only organizations and companies will go bonkers and take this thing to the Supreme Court, where it will most likely be overturned anyway.  So, why waste everyones time for a stupid piece of PC legislation?

[Emsworth]

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

How exactly would you be in a position to know whether any of us has experienced discrimination? In any event, whether we have or have not experienced it is completely irrelevant.

[© tweed]

Nay

[opebo]

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

This is in no sense relevant.

Sure it is, Philip, as your views would change immediately upon a change in your interests.  If you were to be made a poor, you would become a socialist, and if you were to be made a black or a gay, you politics would no longer support discrimination.

Opebo - Philip isn't you, he has these things called 'principles'.

Unlikely, Dibble.  Anyway they've certainly never been 'tested', so I am not inclined to take them very seriously.

[bgwah]

Aye, although realistically I would probably want this bill to only apply to government-hiring.

[dazzleman]

Aye - I'm vehemenently opposed to all forms of discrimination (and yes, I include affirmative action)

Dave

What about competence?  Isn't only hiring a person you perceive as competent a form of discrimination?

You're getting a little PC here, man.  Face the facts -- we discriminate every day, in many, many ways.  The question is not whether we discriminate, but whether we do it on valid grounds.

[Cubby]

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

How exactly would you be in a position to know whether any of us has experienced discrimination? In any event, whether we have or have not experienced it is completely irrelevant.

I am 100% sure that none of you have experienced the type of discrimination this bill aims to prevent. It may be irrelevant, I wasn't making a legal arguement. A person's experience with discrimination directly affects his views, so it is related.

[dazzleman]

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

How exactly would you be in a position to know whether any of us has experienced discrimination? In any event, whether we have or have not experienced it is completely irrelevant.

I am 100% sure that none of you have experienced the type of discrimination this bill aims to prevent. It may be irrelevant, I wasn't making a legal arguement. A person's experience with discrimination directly affects his views, so it is related.

Pym, is there something you want to tell us?

[Cubby]

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

How exactly would you be in a position to know whether any of us has experienced discrimination? In any event, whether we have or have not experienced it is completely irrelevant.

I am 100% sure that none of you have experienced the type of discrimination this bill aims to prevent. It may be irrelevant, I wasn't making a legal arguement. A person's experience with discrimination directly affects his views, so it is related.

Pym, is there something you want to tell us?

Not at the moment, I'm watching the Canadian Election Results

[opebo]

Aye - I'm vehemenently opposed to all forms of discrimination (and yes, I include affirmative action)

Dave

What about competence?  Isn't only hiring a person you perceive as competent a form of discrimination?

More often than not this 'perception of competence' is the result of class and racial or ethnic prejudices, though particularly class, dazzleman. 

[Frodo]

It's about time:

Senate passes gay rights bill;
One-vote margin sends measure to state House

By CHRIS McGANN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

OLYMPIA -- The Senate today voted 25-23 to approve a gay rights bill and ended the debate over legislation that emerged in Washington the same year singer Anita Bryant began her "Save Our Children" crusade against such protections.

Twenty four of 26 Democrats were joined by one Republican and approved the bill with a one-vote majority.

Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, has championed the legislation for a decade. The openly gay legislator, who waited in the wings for the vote, embraced his partner as the clerk read the vote count.

"I'm very happy," Murray said. "It's a moment of joy."

Democrats said the bill was about preventing discrimination.

"The rights of the minority must always be protected," said Sen. Rosa Franklin, D-Tacoma. But polarized views on homosexuality drove emotional debate that was almost identical to that which preceded the vote last year -- when the bill failed by one vote.

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, reversed his previous position to turn the tide this year.

"This has been a terribly difficult issue for me," said Finkbeiner as he explained his change of heart.

"What we are really talking about here is...whether or not it's OK to be gay or homosexual in this state. On whether or not it's appropriate to be discriminating against or to discriminate against someone because of that."

"People don't choose this. We don't choose who we love, the heart chooses who we love," Finkbeiner said.

"I don't believe that it is right ... to say that it's acceptable to discriminate against people because of that , because of who their heart chooses to love. I can not stand with that argument."

source

[afleitch]

Excellent news. Anything that pis*es of Anita Bryant gets my full support

[AkSaber]

Nay

[bergie72]

Yea.

Definitely about time.  Across much of the country, it's still a widely accepted and approved practice to discriminate against gays and lesbians. 

This finally gives us the legal ground to fight this in the courtrooms.

About G-D time!!!