Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lurkette
I'm a lazy ass and I don't feel like googling right now.
Could you (liquidlight) post the specific legislation that's being discussed? I'd like to see what the proposal itself is. All I see in the article above is that it would "ban discrimination against gays and lesbians."
Much of your complaint seems to be directed not at the spirit of the legislation but the letter of it - it would be helpful to see what's being proposed. Or are you against equal rights legislation in principal and think that a market-driven approach is the best way to effect social change (companies that offer equal rights will have better clout in attracting employees so others will be forced to offer similar rights, at least in theory)?
Thanks!
|
Actually I was aimed the other direction, more at the spirit than the letter. That rather than sponsoring equal rights for everyone there is continually legislation that seperates an individual group and grants them specific rights.
Since you asked though, this is the text of the bill:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...Bills/1515.htm
(damn was that a pain to dig up)
I think a market-driven approach as you put it would be one of many things that could foster a lot more acceptance on an equal scale without adding things into law that create not only an ideologic separation but a very legal separation as well. Without coming together and accepting everyone as equal moving forward becomes a bitter battle that no number of laws is going to correct. What it boils down to is that with any law of this nature, regardless of it's intent, if you quantify a particular group you are segregating them despite your intent and sooner or later it's going to only further the very division that you were attempting to eliminate.
Added in edit:
To be fair the law amends current anti-discrimination law to include sexual orientation as unlawful grounds for discrimination. This just feeds my contention though, because what I'm attempting to express is that ANY discrimination on ANY grounds should be discouraged. Rather than picking a particular basis for protection, why can't they just make a sweeping change that disallows all of this nonsense?