liquidlight

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7645856/


I've been a member of several discussions about why things like Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action are excellent theories but are failing miserably in their practice, but about once a week I come across a story like this.

What I'm really wondering is what the hell happened to EQUAL rights?! Why is is that time and again these groups introduce these divisive and discriminatory pieces of legislation under the guise of some minority groups rights when the only viable outcome in the long run is simply a shift in the discrimination? I understand that the world isn't perfect and that there are people that truly do discriminate against people because of their race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or hell even the way they part their damn hair, but why this confuses me is that laws of this nature only truly serve to reinforce these stereotypes and in my mind foster the very resentment and hostility that they claim to be pre-empting!

To be honest for quite some time I've been bitter about the state of "gay and lesbian rights" in the modern world. Why is it that I'm required to be sensitive about offending them with my mannerism, my speech, and my public behavior but at the same time it's not only acceptable but expected that they should be allowed to completely disregard any of my feelings or beliefs? If I hosted a "hetero-pride" parade they would throw my ass in jail, but a gay-pride parade involving behaviors that would get anyone else thrown in jail for indecency, i.e. the ones exposing themselves, is commonplace!

So where is the equality that we're supposedly fostering with these new laws? Would you support a legislation like this and why or why not?

I hope I'm not coming across as a complete bigot, I have 2 gay men as roommates and above anything else they're people, we watch movies, have a beer, hang out, and I could care less who they prefer to sleep with, so why must these fanatics create a larger issue on a subject that has been resolving itself over the last several decades? Stop trying to grant the minority groups special privleges and alot EVERYONE the same EQUAL rights. If they want to get married, let them it's none of my damn business. If they want a job, wonderful, that's more than I can say for a lot of the people living off welfare right now. We're all human, when will the day come that we stop qualifying people based on separatist criteria and treat each as humans?

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

JustJess

I think that if you look at this a little more with the long term shift in societal perceptions in mind, you might feel differently. No, of course I don't believe any one group should be pandered to and have more priviledges than other groups. However, in order for them to get to the status of 'just a person', they have to go through this growing phase. For a while, they only get regular rights by having some guilty-feeling liberals (in whatever era we're discussing, I believe, and I would be one of those) go overboard in protecting the group.

You can't deny that you are not representative of the whole country - there are plenty of people who think/believe/act as if gay people are going to hell, or blacks are not as good as whites, or women shouldn't be so outspoken(tho admittedly, this one is finally seeing some regular equality). So until EVERYONE is able to treat people as people, special concessions are made to try to even the scales.
Is this the best way? Not necessarily. But it may not be the worst way, either. I would be interested in knowing your ideas on how we can shift the societal perception more efficiently.

Edit: Hm, after reading Lurkette's post, I feel the need to clarify: I was mostly pinpointing dealing with discomfort and in general, the EOE laws and the like. Eventually, they won't need to be written on every job/apt/etc application, and will be a part of our social fabric. This is just a way to get there.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

lurkette

Um, I'm afraid you are in fact coming across as a bit of a bigot.

Well, let me clarify that. You seem to be somewhat inconsistent in your ranting.

Let's make a distinction between "public expectations" and "basic rights."

You say "Why is it that I'm required to be sensitive about offending them with my mannerism, my speech, and my public behavior but at the same time it's not only acceptable but expected that they should be allowed to completely disregard any of my feelings or beliefs?" This law is not about requiring anybody to be sensitive or to alter their public behavior or their individual expression. It would require institutions, corporations, etc., to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You're confusing two issues: political correctness (which has outlived its limited usefulness IMHO) and legislation to prevent discrimination.

You also say "stop trying to grant the minority groups special privleges and alot EVERYONE the same EQUAL rights." Um...that's what this bill is trying to do! There's nothing "special" about offering benefits to the partners of employees who are unable to marry because of laws on the books that are, more and more, being challenged as discriminatory and unconstitutional. And this issue is not "resolving itself" - why do you think we've seen more and more acceptance (or at least tolerance) for homosexuality over the past few decades? It's because people have spoken up and refused to be treated as inferiors because of the religious opinions of some people. Sometimes protest and visibility are necessary to effect change when the majority of the population doesn't support that change - look at civil rights in the 60s; look at women's rights (forget the vote - did you know that until several decades ago women were not allowed to have credit cards in their own names?); entrenched discrimination does not change on its own. I'm sorry if you wish all of this could just...disappear so you wouldn't have to hide your discomfort with the public behavior of some homosexuals, but it's not going to happen. And if you want everyone allotted the same equal rights, support legislation that removes institutionalized (and often religiously-based) discrimination from our laws.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

liquidlight

I fully support removing the current discriminatory clauses from the existing laws, but I don't feel that doing that by creating new laws that simply change what the clauses discriminate against is the appropriate action. To me marriage law should say "between two people" and everybody else should stay the hell out of it. I despise the religious connotations that are added to almost every aspect of life, and trust me, living in Utah they are everywhere.

Really to clarify what I'm trying to express is that it just seems wrong to me that the reaction of these groups to the naysayers is to create a polarity opposition, go as far the other direction as they can and completely eliminate the middle ground, I see this as detrimental to everyone involved.

Situations like these laws, and their repeated failure to pass, have created animosity among all of the participants, even hatred at the more extreme levels. Time and time again rather than attempting to have the existing laws amended to incorporate equal rights for everyone, they introduce things to grant specific special rights to a particular set of people, which only perpetuates the problem by leave the rest of the groups that suffer from a similar discrimination to fend for themselves.

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

Cynthetiq

Why do they have to go through this growing phase? Can they not evolve as a community without such things? So let's say they must have this kind of displays of parades, Do the Irish pull their dicks out during their parades? How about the Puerto Rican Day parade? No they don't, but a few assholes have ruined it for everyone being drunk and harassing women. There's no difference to me...personally I have experienced the worst people at these "narrow minded" parades, from Irish to Filipino.

I have lots of issues with reverse racism and reverse discrimination. It's hypocritical on it's face.

"Oh because you're great grandparents were repressed we have to do special things for you now" - doesn't sit well with me because well, I didn't have anything to do with the past egregious affairs. Why do I have to bear the burden of someone else's crime?

Thomas Jefferson promised "equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political," but I have yet to see in history or modern day that it exists.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

JustJess

I think the growing phase is inevitable because we as a society are not mature and responsible enough to do without it. We are not capable of having true equality yet, so our society is going through growing pains until we are. These EOE clauses and over the top parades are those growing pains, IMO.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

liquidlight

Growing pains are all fine and well, but then what do we do when the phase is complete and we're left with archaic and defunct processes that more people are forced to conform with to the detriment of even the people that they were originally supposed to protect?

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

Sweetpea

That is what this leg. is trying to obtain. Poltically, a voice must be made for those in the margins of societal norms. That is what this leg. is intending to do. Having a spouse that works for MS, I am disappointed the MS corp. decided to withdrawl support this year on this bill, being a massive employer, they do have clout in the political system.

How exactly does this foster resentment and hostility in you?? It's not like anyone is asking you to be involved in it . . . you could just as easily ignore it and look the other way . . .

Um . . . you would get thrown in jail for having a "hetro. pride" rally? I think not. What makes you think this?


Yes, i would support it. Because it is making the playing field even . . . we're not all "equal" in the eyes of society or the political system whether or not you would like to believe that. I am assuming you are in the majority culture, and with that perspective, you think everything is equal . . . but do you get turned down for apartments because of your partner? Do you get denied access to things based on your sexuality? These are things that happen every day to individuals who are not in the majority, and i'm not just talking sexuality . . . i'm saying any minority, cultural or otherwise. And we need legislation to MAKE things equal.


I see partially where you are coming from here . . . but we're not all equal and to get there . . . as you noted where everyone thinks it's none of their damn business, we need legislation.

thanks,

Sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

liquidlight

I have nothing against adjusting the current legistlation to correct these discrepancies, what I object to is that this particular legistlation exchanges one discrimination for another. MS has no business backing ANY legislation in my opinion, they should simply foster their own internal policies in such a fashion to be non-discriminatory across the board. It is not a corporations duty or right to influence legistlation at all, that's how we ended up with things like the carpet-baggers with congress in their pockets in days gone by and why there are serious limitations on campaign finance!


Because it personally influences my life and the way that I interact with the company that I work for. The last thing that I need is the insurance companies that you're using as an example to have a new excuse to increase my rates based on what they claim were adjustments that they had to make to conform with this legistlation. As a pre-emptive argument a bill similar to this has been presented in my state legislature every year for nearly a decade, this article was just an example.

Have you ever seen some of the gay-pride parades? Like Cyn said, if I had a hetero-pride parade where I went walking down the street in nothing but a pair of penis-cuffs (yes it DOES happen quite often) I'd be arrested and jailed for indecency.

No, I get denied things based on my credit rating, but that's another rant. I KNOW that very little in this world is equal, but that's what I'm suggesting is wrong with these bills, rather than fostering equality they are creating a specific segregation based on a particular groups beliefs. If you qualify one group over another for a particular characteristic how is that equal? I would love to see legislation to MAKE things equal but a bill like this doesn't do that, all it does is elevate a particular sect of society above another and move the problem to a new angle.


sorry about the edits, that's what I get for messing up tags

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

JustJess

I don't know. If I knew that, I'd be in politics too. I agree that we're going to have to change the way we do some things, but I honestly have no idea how to go about doing so.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Sweetpea

Whether or not people see this . . . large companies have alot of say in what happens politically . . . as another example, Walmart is one of the largest reasons the minimum wage is so low, they have Lobbyists that work day and night in politics to keep this so. Corp's such as MS have large clout and other companies will follow their lead, such as providing healthcare benefits to same sex partners, now other companies are choosing to do this as well. It may not be a corps. 'duty or right' to influence legistlation, i am a firm believer in seperation between the corps. and govenment . . . but that is just not the truth. It's no secret that many of the global Corps. basically rule the government and it's polices from foriegn aid to environmental laws . . . So, although i would like this not to be happening, it IS happening and why not make sure while they're lobbying for everything else, they lobby for some gay rights too.


I see your point here.



I see your point here . . . But We have to work within the system we're given, it's all we've got and although it's more than a bit disfunct, it's the only means advocates have of making their voice heard.
Until we have a government/societal overhaul, working on leg. such as this with large corps. is how we can gain equal rights for everyone currently . . . of course i would like to see things happening differently, but right now it's the only avenune we've got for making rights equal.

Thanks,

Sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

liquidlight

That's just what I'm saying though, rather than making token speeches about support for something that isn't going to solve the problem, why not work internally to lead by example by simply making these rights and privleges equally available? They don't need a law to remove discrimination, the law would rather force them to do it, which just gives rise to the small-minded people claiming that they only changed their policy because the government forced them too which only reinforces that small-minded persons belief that the law and the policy are inherently wrong.

Now this I can agree with you on, the system is screwed, thank you for adding it to my context of thought. I guess really what I'm wondering is if as a society we couldn't perpetuate some of this overhaul without contributing to the dysfunction in the interim.

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

Sweetpea

Our society is so close minded and many individuals do not even think for themselves, they trustingly think that if a law is made about it . . then it must be the way to think and act, laws are made for these kind of people.
Based on this cultural fact and working within the system we're given, laws have to come first in tandem with societal change. I know that you're saying that by actually making it a law, we're perpetuating these very issues . . . but again, we have to work within the system we're given, as screwed up as it may be

thanks,

Sweetpea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

liquidlight

As a side note, why isn't this type of moderate, and thanks to the people on the other side of this debate, intelligent discussion and attempted resolution possible in our current political structure?

Sweetpea thank you for your insights! I wish that we could reach a conclusion that allowed for a solution to the problem, though sadly if we did we'd have little impact on the actualy procedure.

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

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!

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

liquidlight

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?

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

lurkette

Here's the deal, though - the legislation is not separating an individual group and granting them rights, it's simply adding a criterion (sexual orientation) to the list of things that can't be used as basis for discrimination (age, gender, race, etc.). It's taking a group that's very specifically NOT protected and bringing them under the blanket of protection that is currently afforded to every other person...who's not gay. If the bill were saying something like "every apartment complex that doesn't have at least 10% gay/lesbian tenants has to rent preferentially to homosexuals until the population is proportionately representative." Now THAT would be preferential treatment. This is not guaranteeing special rights, it's guaranteeing EQUAL rights. I'm not sure how you would go about ensuring equal rights for everyone without specifying the things people are not allowed to discriminate based on. (Sorry for the bad grammar.) It's perfectly legitimate for lenders to discriminate based on credit history (sorry, dude), or for hotels not to rent rooms to minors who have no legal standing (age of reason changes based on social norms); but I don't see any problem with specifiying how people are NOT allowed to discriminate against certain groups who currently are likely to experience discrimination. Not expressing myself very well.....d'oh.

The problem I have with a market-driven system is that the whims (and therefore the values) of the market change with what is financially expedient, not what is ethically right. From the legislation: "The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled personare a matter of state concern, that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state." Such basic protections of fundamental principles of democracy would seem to me to be the domain of the state and not of corporate entities.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

liquidlight

I read the legislation in full after and this law is really a bad example of the argument I'm making because as it's written I agree with the protection that it's advocating, as an equal addition to existing rules. I read the articles that centered around people being upset at Microsoft for declaring themselves neutral on it and that seemed to say to me that they felt they deserved preferential treatment, in this case from MS, because of their practices. As far as this particular law I'll be the first to admit that I'd be wrong to argue against it because it doesn't meet any of the criteria that we've put forward up to this point and aims only for equality.

Outlined like this I'd agree with you, but that's why it's important that corporations not be the ONLY ones resposible for these ethics and upholding equality because I'm sure that for the vast majority of them it would take about 10 minutes of it cutting into their bottom line for them to ditch the practices! However, large corporations do have the power to sway public opinions, like you observed, so it is important that they set good examples which is where a law written like this one could be invaluable in holding them to a decent standard.

Really though more than this particular law I was attempting to open a discussion on why certain people feel that they should be awarded special privleges over another person, pretty much in any situation. And why should it be the power of the state over the individual person to be responsible about being mature enough to attempt to limit and/or remove wrongfully discriminatory practices?

__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.