LGBT as a protected class

Revealing that you don't address the argument made here on this thread

 

Actually, it is NOT ok to discriminate because of physical attributes UNLESS under certain circumstances, it can be shown that the physical attribute in question poses a threat to individual themselves or others in that situation. An example is in a job where not being strong enough can get one injured or driving where having epilepsy or narcolepsy can cause an accident. However you cannot refuse to sell something someone because you just don't trust short people or refuse to hire fat people because you think they are gross.

Unless one can show that an LGBT individual cannot do a particular job or that it would constitute a danger to the individual or others BECAUSE they are LGBT, that individual cannot be discriminated against. I know few people will bring up HIV, but since HIV can affect anyone and not all LGBT have HIV, it has no bearing on LGBT only on individuals infected with HIV.

 

You seem to be attempting to accuse me of making a straw man argument here. I am only clarifying my OP, not attempting to rebut any direct claim made in this thread. One need not look further than the thread to which I linked in the OP, to find these arguments being made.

 

You are mistaken. Private employers can discriminate on any basis they like as long as they don't live in California and they aren't in the list of protected classes. Employer can not hire you because he doesn't like the way you comb your hair if he likes.
The EEOC under Obama has declared that discrimination on the basis of being an LGBorT is in fact discrimination on the basis of gender, but that executive dictate hasn't been tested in courts.

 

Lovers of lies will certainly appreciate your efforts. No one else will.

That is of no moment. All that matters is that any list that includes both perversion and the free exercise of religion isn't worth keeping.

Sure they could, just as everything that can be said about Hitler can also be said of Ghandi - just not by anyone sane.

 

Nope. Revealing that you don't address the argument made here on this thread

 

Revealing that you have no idea what 'straw-man argument' means, I guess ...

 

I know exactly what strawman means. Did you have a point relevant to my post you decided to quote and respond to? I didn't think so.

 

I think that TRYING to find a GAY GENE, so to make gays protected is stupid, wrongheaded and sure to run into homophobia.

To PROTECT gays is not stupid. We must protect those minority communities that are under ridicule, so they too can pursue their happiness.

 

That is way STUPID !

When I was 8, I was very frail and thin, maybe girlish looking, minding my own business, other children would walk up to me and call me a skinny-ma-rink and thump me to make me sound like a hollow drum, it was humiliating, or call me Gay, or call me with a fa**ot. Sometimes, they would pull off your pants and underwear and other clothes, and leave you naked.

Do you think Government should allow any type of abuse like this ?

Discrimination and abuse of any kind is wrong !!!!!

 

Thumping you and striping your clothes is already against the law. No need for additional laws.

 

No. I don't think he is referring to abuse at all or any criminal conduct including harassment etc. He is talking specifically about those sections of the civil rights act that prohibit businesses from firing, refusing to hire, refusing to serve, or refusing to rent or sell based on any criteria at all. he means that employer/ owner segregation and discrimination based on any criteria in restaurants, hotels, privately owned hospitals, nursing homes, ambulance companies, doctors offices,or schools, bars, grocery stores etc should be permitted behavior.

If you , as a gay or black or jewish man buys a home in a rural area, and the only grocery store for miles, does not want to sell to you because they just do not sell to blacks or gays or jews, your choices are to drive twenty miles further each week, beg someone else to buy your groceries for you, or sell your home and move.

He is okay with an America where you and a group of your friends arrive at the lone restaurant in that small town, only to see the waitress seat all of you in the back because a gay couple is with you. He is fine with pregnant women fired a month before they are due to give birth, women offered only 'certain' job applications and gay couples denied housing or rent everywhere they turn in, all across small towns in Texas. He is okay if a private ambulance company, turns its car around after discovering the victim has AIDS. He feels comfortable with privately owned nursing homes deny service to Hispanics and private schools throwing out trans kids. He thinks private business should feel free to fire employees newly diagnosed with cancer, or the ten year veteran Betty, who is rumored to be living with a woman, or a clerk named Jude, who marries a Korean. He does not demand or expect that businesses have handicap access ramps, or those braille buttons on elevators. He thinks that the marketplace will take care of all those little snafus.

Minorities had best stay in large diverse cities, where they know at least someone is likely to be willing to seat you, hire you, rent to you. As for the physically handicapped, they will have few options because really does not pay for small businesses to put thousands and thousands of dollars into structural accomodations for the small percentage of market they represent and government no longer cares.

Its not hard to envision this America. We have already been there, done that.

 

Like America BEFORE the ADA when the disabled in the US had a LOWER unemployment rate than they do now under the ADA.

 

There shouldn't be a protect class list the list in it self is discriminatory unless every individual is on that list
every individual has the right to be protected as any other individual why would some one be more deserving of protection over another?

 

you know that the definition of disability has broadened to include entirely different populations since the ADA act was passed, right? We are now including a host of mental illnesses etc. Heck you are referring to an era before HIV hit. Its impossible to compare the stats.

 

You can define it however you like. People with disabilities were employed at a higher rate BEFORE the enactment of the ADA

- - - Updated - - -

The new equality, INEQUALITY by design.

 

The government should allow whatever the law says it should allow. In the case of the federal government, there is a great deal it should allow, owing to the fact the Constitution limits its powers to those enumerated therein.

Well obviously abuse is wrong by definition; but as for discrimination, insofar as it is an exercise of the freedom of association, it is an unalienable right of every private entity.

 

You want to legislate against ridicule, seriously?

 

- - - Updated - - -

Prove that fact, using statistics that define the criteria and population consistently. That means you have to dig a little deeper than using some chart you came across, or quote an article or editorial. You have to know who was included as a person with disabilities in the first years, and who was called a person with disabilities in the years after or the comparison you are trying to draw is meaningless. If you are using stats before the Iraq/ Afghanistan wars, and a second stat after they started, that will increase the number of disabled quickly and dramatically. If you use one set of stats during a strong economy , and another during the Bush Recession, your results will be skewed by the a huge rise in the general unemployment figure. If you are using pre HIV unemployment stats for your first numbers, and post HIV stats in your later numbers, knowing that HIV resulted in a large influx of disabled people to count, but no more jobs to count, your results cannot be comparable.

I am asking you to think and research rather than just throw out the stats you came across.

 

well that is cute and unexamined. I did not know there were 'unalienable rights' for entities of any sort, private or I never heard of this peculiar idea the entities have a freedom of association. Where do you get any of this from beyond your imagination?

 

Several studies have been done by professionals who are not idiots.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm

seems to be well footnoted. No one questions that employment of the disabled declined, the only debate is why.

 

Entities are made up of people. Owners of a business don't lose their rights when they form a corporate entity

 

Gay marriage is such legislation. And not just against ridicule but legislate (more frequently judicial dictates ) to win more "respect and dignity" for gays from the rest of us. From the California case-

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights….

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....(*)

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....(*)

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals...(*)

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....(*)

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....(*)

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples...

 

The poor "traditional marriage" and anti-trans "conservatives" have no candidate in 2016....

they're voting for the guy who attended a gay wedding...and told Caitlyn Jenner she could use whatever bathroom she wanted in his building.

 

Yes they do. There is no right to run a business. There is no right to run a business any way you like. There is no right to incorporate. All these are privileges that local, state and federal governments and corresponding regulatory agencies agree to allow if your entity following the laws pertaining. Try running a restaurant and ignoring health codes and the repeated violations and see how unalienable your right to keep that entity existing remains. Try ignoring fire code and see what happens to that unalienable right. businesses that try to discriminate and remain free to 'associate' only with those who they choose to will face sufficient fines to drive them out of business, because there is no right to have a business or run one.