--- Got this from an Oregon legislator ----
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about civil unions andanti-discrimination legislation. While I respect the position of Oregon voters on Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage, I also know that many voters who supported measure 36 believe discrimination in things like jobs and housing is wrong.
------end B.S. ----
Oh really? So does that mean the legislature is going to seek to prevent discrimination of all persons based on their behavior?
Can I not discriminate my vote, based on your voting behavior?
Can we no longer refuse to hire people that curse every other word? How would you like it if you could not refuse to hire an L.A. that swore every other word?
Can we no longer refuse to rent to smokers?
Can we no longer refuse to hire fat people for skinny people jobs?
Are we going to disallow men/women from discriminating against a verbally abusing spouse?
Are we going to disallow employers from firing sloppy workers?
Is it against the law to fire someone that is habitually late to work?
No, these are not the law, but are the legal equivalents of what the Oregon legislature did yesterday. They are all discriminations that are allowed in our society based on a persons behavior. The same as discrimination based on sexual behavior. Can you tell me how I find out if a person applying for a job is gay/lesbian? I didn't think so, I will only find out if they tell me, or I witness some behavior. That means it is a conscious action on their part -- different than race, religion, national origin, sex.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I'm confused. You say "They are all discriminations based on a persons [sic] behavior," but then say that this "conscious action" is different from religion. How so? If I, as an employer, should be allowed to fire someone who is gay or lesbian, why should I not also be permitted to do the same to a Christian?
Every person's right to free exercise of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If you want to make laws to allow discrimination based on religion, then go ahead and try. The U.S. Constitution might be in your way. If you want to know why congress included religion in the in Title 6 section 2000e of the 1964 Civil Rights Act then you will probably have to ask them. But it could have something to do with the fact that religious freedom was one of at least the top two reasons that the pilgrims and founders of our country came to America. Sorry but I don't think anyone then, or now thinks sexual freedom is quite that important.
Im confused. michael says he's "confused" but he's really obtuse - is that contagious?
My dad (a very devout Christian) once fired an employee of his for talking to customers about Jesus on the job. Of course the employee told everyone he was fired for being a Christian. The fact was that he was fired for his "behavior". He was hired to do a job and to represent the company professionally. If a gay or lesbian displays offensive "behavior", then they should be fired as well. I personally had a lesbian employee for over 8 years. None of my customers knew she was a lesbian because she kept her "behavior" on a professional level. SB2 will create many more problems than it will solve.
No, Activist, what the 1st Amendment protects is government interference with the free exercise of religion. It says nothing of private discrimination on the basis of anyone's religious beliefs. One doesn't need to make laws "allowing discrimination based on religion," what the Oregon anti-discrimination statute does is prohibit discrimination based on religion. So I ask again, why, in your view, should I not be permitted to discriminate (in employment decisions, etc.) based upon someone's religious beliefs but should be allowed to discriminate based upon someone's sexual orientation? Your original post seemed to imply that religion is not a "conscious action" but sexual orientation is. That's plainly inaccurate. So what, in your opinion, is the distinction the law should make between these issues? It seems to me that one must either be in favor of anti-discrimination laws for both, or opposed to anti-discrimination laws for both. I'm trying to figure out the rationale for supporting one and not supporting the other. Care to shed any light?
Where did you get the idea that I supported the federal government getting involved in any private activity? First of all, the federal government would have to get involved in order to repeal the civil rights act (thereby making racial discrimination in employment legal), as you suggest would need to be done to be uniform in the religion as behavior vs homosexuality etc as behavior comparison.
So the comparison does not work under the world as we know it today. Second, where did the federal government get the right to regulate what kind of janitor I hire to clean the toilets? From the commerce clause of course... didn't you know that janitorial services are interstate commerce? Oh boy, the liberal courts sure have.
If I was part of making the decision back in 1964 - or more accurately in 1957 when the Republicans first tried to pass civil rights laws but were stopped by the Democrats - I probably would have made a distinction between those types of classifications.
Third, I can also justify why religion is protected behavior. Throughout much of history has been tied to ethnicity. For instance is a person that calls themselves a Jew talking about their religion or their ethnicity? They are often used interchangeably, so the line between ethcicity and religion is fuzzy.
Fourth many religions, Judiasm, Calvinism, Islam believe that you are either born into the religion, or where chosen specially to be a part of the religion. So theoretically "unchosen" people cannot join the classification, thus it is an immutable trait.
So yes, although religion can be expressed as a behavior, it is inherently different than the behavior that gays and lesbians engage in.
Lastly, the state or federal government telling me that I cannot choose to not affiliate with persons whom I choose not to, violates my right to free association. And if I exercise my religion by avoiding affiliation with "bad influences" but this choice is taken away from me, the I am having part of my free exercise prohibited.
First, I wasn't addressing federal legislation; if only to keep the discussion on point, it's easier to focus on the anti-discrimination laws we have right here in Oregon. Second, whether some religions are or can be tied to ethnicity is beside the point. Lots of Jews are "non-practicing," for example; anti-discrimination statutes already prohibit discrimination based upon race or ethnicity, so a secular Jew would be protected without the need for tossing religion into the statute. For purposes of comparison between religious identity and sexual orientation with regard to anti-discrimination laws, we are essentially talking about behavior and identity. Does one hold oneself to be a homosexual and act accordingly? Does one hold oneself to be a Christian and act accordingly? It's immaterial what Calvinists, Muslims, Jews, etc., believe: the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from making laws that favor one set of religious beliefs over another. Likewise, it is just as arguable that for many, sexual orientation is less mutable than one's religious beliefs. Certainly, the available science supports that. (And I, for one, don't wake up every morning wondering, "hmm, will I be straight or gay today?" Perhaps you do, I don't know.) But putting all that aside and accepting that some people can more easily change their sexual orientation and their religious beliefs than they can change their race, ethnicity, or gender, then should Oregon pass laws that prohibit discrimination based upon these two factors?
I can certainly accept your argument that such laws violate one's right to free association. That's never been in question. It violates my right of free association when I am told I can not fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to rent an apartment to someone solely because that person is black, asian, white, a male, a female, etc. Those things are difficult, if not impossible, to change, and for better or worse our society has decided that discrimination based upon those factors is illegal. I'm not even asking whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment and the laws that enforce it. I'm asking simply whether you agree that anti-discrimination laws based on one's religious affiliation are just as wrong-headed as you think anti-discrimination laws based on one's sexual orientation are?
You seem not to agree with that, but you haven't provided any reasons that aren't grounded in some particular religious doctrines (reasoning that is prohibited by the 1st Amendment). Nor have you explicated how religious affiliation, as behavior, is "inherently different" from sexual orientation, as behavior. Why would it be okay for the state of Oregon to tell me, "you must not discriminate against a Christian," but not okay for the state to tell me, "you must not discriminate against a homosexual"? It seems to me that either the state should be able to tell me both, or neither.
First, I wasn't addressing federal legislation; if only to keep the discussion on point, it's easier to focus on the anti-discrimination laws we have right here in Oregon. Second, whether some religions are or can be tied to ethnicity is beside the point. Lots of Jews are "non-practicing," for example; anti-discrimination statutes already prohibit discrimination based upon race or ethnicity, so a secular Jew would be protected without the need for tossing religion into the statute. For purposes of comparison between religious identity and sexual orientation with regard to anti-discrimination laws, we are essentially talking about behavior and identity. Does one hold oneself to be a homosexual and act accordingly? Does one hold oneself to be a Christian and act accordingly? It's immaterial what Calvinists, Muslims, Jews, etc., believe: the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from making laws that favor one set of religious beliefs over another. Likewise, it is just as arguable that for many, sexual orientation is less mutable than one's religious beliefs. Certainly, the available science supports that. (And I, for one, don't wake up every morning wondering, "hmm, will I be straight or gay today?" Perhaps you do, I don't know.) But putting all that aside and accepting that some people can more easily change their sexual orientation and their religious beliefs than they can change their race, ethnicity, or gender, then should Oregon pass laws that prohibit discrimination based upon these two factors?
I can certainly accept your argument that such laws violate one's right to free association. That's never been in question. It violates my right of free association when I am told I can not fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to rent an apartment to someone solely because that person is black, asian, white, a male, a female, etc. Those things are difficult, if not impossible, to change, and for better or worse our society has decided that discrimination based upon those factors is illegal. I'm not even asking whether you agree or disagree with that sentiment and the laws that enforce it. I'm asking simply whether you agree that anti-discrimination laws based on one's religious affiliation are just as wrong-headed as you think anti-discrimination laws based on one's sexual orientation are?
You seem not to agree with that, but you haven't provided any reasons that aren't grounded in some particular religious doctrines (reasoning that is prohibited by the 1st Amendment). Nor have you explicated how religious affiliation, as behavior, is "inherently different" from sexual orientation, as behavior. Why would it be okay for the state of Oregon to tell me, "you must not discriminate against a Christian," but not okay for the state to tell me, "you must not discriminate against a homosexual"? It seems to me that either the state should be able to tell me both, or neither.
Michael, I already explained how a person's religious identity is different than a persons "sexual identity". I guess you do not understand what I am saying. I can understand that you would not get it, many people that do not come from a background of particular moral principals cannot understand the value that is inherent in many other people's arguments. That is one of the biggest problems in society today... people cannot tell the difference between the person and the action (aka the sin and the sinner). For instance, I fully believe that it is ok the hate the sin, and to speak out against the sin, whatever it may be. However we should love the sinner/person, for who they are no matter what. That being said, it shows you that if you separate the person, from their actions there are two different things we are talking about. Like I said earlier, if a person is a Christian or a Jew, they are that from birth (or before) onward, without choice (depending on the exact beliefs of the denomination. However a gay person is simply born a person. They only become gay when they choose to have intercourse with someone of the same sex. Totally different than religion. They can become un-gay by rejecting that one behavior. Part of living in a society means that we all have to reject certain wrong/sinful/ineffective/dangerous behaviors as our case may be.
I think each person´s free in this world , some people are black , blonde , but this´s the different each person , this´s the beauty in this world , the different between us!
Post a Comment