ENDA Now Has The Support Of Every Single Senate Democrat

chromium said:

Easy to say if you're a white heterosexual male.

Click to expand...

It's easy to say also if you don't believe that government is the solution to all the ills of society.


>>>>

Fisher said:

Easy to say if you are not paying the bills. In a lot of places it is already illegal to ask a job applicant about their sexual orientation but now they would be sued for discriminating based on the unknown answer to a question they cannot even legally ask.

Click to expand...

In most States you can legally ask about sexual orientation and deny employment. Virginia is one of them, there are no LBGT employment protections and Virginia is a right to work state. You can be denied employment for being gay, you can be terminated for being gay and there is no violation of the law.


>>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

In most States you can legally ask about sexual orientation and deny employment. Virginia is one of them, there are no LBGT employment protections and Virginia is a right to work state. You can be denied employment for being gay, you can be terminated for being gay and there is no violation of the law.


>>>>>

Click to expand...

Then move to Michigan or California.

soot said:

The one where black people only count as three-fifths of "real" people?

Click to expand...

This is a common, but easily corrected historical misunderstanding.

Where slaves are accounted representation in government, because they argued that economically, 3 freemen can accomplish the same task as 5 slaves. It was an economic rationale, not a statement of their human condition. The South did not have a large population. It had a massive slave population, however.The benefit of the 3/5 clause transferred to slave-holding states, because without that extra 3/5, their political power would have been significantly diminished.

Fisher said:

Then move to Michigan or California.

Click to expand...

So you are for discrimination. Is it just cause you are for discrimination against gays or are you for conservatives, Christians, blacks and women being discriminated as well?

Fisher said:

Then move to Michigan or California.

Click to expand...

Hahaha, are you this ignorant? There is no ENDA protection (or adoption, or marriage, or anything else) in michigan i assure you. Some cities have made their own laws, but good god, comparing it to california? At least bother to look up who shares your bigotry.

Mr.Nick said:

Well, democrats, progressives and socialists adhere to the philosophy of collectivism...

Click to expand...

So did much of your founding generation and the subsequent generations.

Employment discrimination isn't eliminated because of a law. As many know, there can be a severe disconnect between obeying the law and actually hiring a protected-class citizen. Frequently they find a means of obeying the law while still preventing them from being employed. The law should still exist, but let's not pretend that this is somehow complete coercion.

Fiddytree said:

This is a common, but easily corrected historical misunderstanding.

It was an economic rationale, not a statement of their human condition.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all.

Their "human condition" was that they were chattel property, little more than animals in the eyes of most early Americans (and arguably most or many Americans in general up until about the 1970s).

That an "economic rationale" would be the primary determinant of how this country, politically, viewed several million people speaks more to the uncivilized nature of 18th century Americans than any other argument I'd care to make.

And mind you, I'm not making some bleeding heart, anachronistic argument here for how I (may or may not) think blacks should have been viewed back then.

I understand that the views those people had and the policy they made consequent to those views was a product of their times. They couldn't have taken a much more "enlightened" view of blacks.

My point, simply, is that as America continues to civilize and evolve culturally and socially we should expect that our laws relative to equality will civilize and evolve as well.

When the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution it would never have occurred to them to insist that all people be treated equally or that it might some day be socially unacceptable to have some Sneeches with stars on their bellies and others without.

So, to me, saying "Well, the Constitution says nothing about requiring businesses to treat any human being who walks through the door equally" doesn't hold a great deal of water.

Of course the Constitution doesn't say that.

In fact it tacks to the polar opposite direction and says "some people are only worth 3/5ths of a person" (the ultimate reason it says that being largely irrelevant).

Fortunately we have a system of government that allows us to change our laws as our views about people, and how people should be treated, develop.

soot said:

I don't think it's a misunderstanding at all.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. It's one of the most common things Professors have to clear up in any undergraduate history course. Willing it to mean otherwise won't change it.

TheNextEra said:

So it's your logic that it is a violation of human rights not to be able to discriminate gays, blacks, etc.

Got it :doh

Click to expand...

Learn the rhetorical trade. According to many, chattel slavery is as bad as being taxed unfairly or being told that you can't discriminate.

TheNextEra said:

So you are for discrimination. Is it just cause you are for discrimination against gays or are you for conservatives, Christians, blacks and women being discriminated as well?

Click to expand...

I am opposed to creating more individual causes of action. If society deems that a group should be shielded then it is society that is offended when those laws are broken and society through government is the one that should be enforcing the laws and doling out the punishment and receiving the funds if any are to be collected. If it does not rise to the level of requiring government intervention, then it is a harmless wrong in relation to society.

Fiddytree said:

Yes, it is. It's one of the most common things Professors have to clear up in any undergraduate history course. Willing it to mean otherwise won't change it.

Click to expand...

If history professors are explaining that the three-fifths compromise was purely economic and had absolutely nothing to do with the human condition of slaves then: a.) those professors are ****ing idiots and b.) no wonder this country ranks so low in education.

Let me ask you, professor, what was it about the "human condition" of slaves, black slaves, that allowed for them to be explained away as three-fifths of a person for representational purposes?

Was it "nothing"?

Nothing at all about their "condition"?

Jesus Christ, I honestly hope you don't teach history for a living.

soot said:

If history professors are explaining that the three-fifths compromise was purely economic and had absolutely nothing to do with the human condition of slaves then: a.) those professors are ****ing idiots and b.) no wonder this country ranks so low in education.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation of what it meant was simply incorrect. If you have a problem with the entire historical community, then that's your business. It mostly means that you're just flat out wrong.

Jesus Christ, I honestly hope you don't teach history for a living.

Click to expand...

Be prepared to be irritated.

I can say this with certainty, however. I bet you don't.

Fisher said:

I am opposed to creating more individual causes of action. If society deems that a group should be shielded then it is society that is offended when those laws are broken and society through government is the one that should be enforcing the laws and doling out the punishment and receiving the funds if any are to be collected. If it does not rise to the level of requiring government intervention, then it is a harmless wrong in relation to society.

Click to expand...

In other words, you're just pissed you won't be able to discriminate against gays. You have no problem with "protections" with groups you agree with.

Fiddytree said:

Your interpretation of what it meant was simply incorrect. If you have a problem with the entire historical community, then that's your business. It mostly means that you're just flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

I'll tell you man, my undergrad degree is in history and in all my schooling I never had a history professor who was so myopic that (s)he didn't take the context of the society and culture in which historical incidents occurred into account.

I mean, I'm sure I could call one of them on the phone today and ask the same questions I've been asking you here and any one of them would tell me, "Sure, of course early American society's views of African American slaves played a huge role in the manner in which they were handled politically".

So while there may be some small, pedagogical segment of the "entire historical community" that seems to believe that history occurs in a vacuum or a silo I think that by and large most of them are just better thinkers than that.

Fiddytree said:

Learn the rhetorical trade. According to many, chattel slavery is as bad as being taxed unfairly or being told that you can't discriminate.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was as bad as chattel slavery.

soot said:

I'll tell you man, my undergrad degree is in history and in all my schooling I never had a history professor who was so myopic that (s)he didn't take the context of the society and culture in which historical incidents occurred into account.

I mean, I'm sure I could call one of them on the phone today and ask the same questions I've been asking you here and any one of them would tell me, "Sure, of course early American society's views of African American slaves played a huge role in the manner in which they were handled politically".

So while there may be some small, pedagogical segment of the "entire historical community" that seems to believe that history occurs in a vacuum or a silo I think that by and large most of them are just better thinkers than that.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether conceptions of African Americans impacted politics, but rather if the 3/5 compromise was actually a statement that suggested either: 1) Black people are 3/5 a person 2) Slaves are 3/5 people, instead of "slaves for purposes of Representation, shall count as 3/5 per any other freeman." There's a significant difference. The implication you raise is that had the number been lower, this would have accounted for an even lower opinion of black persons, when in fact, it would have held significance in states which had wanted to use its slave population to advance its aims in maintaining or expanding the institution of slavery and related interests. The lower the number, the more anti-slavery, or particularly northern interests would have been served.

TheNextEra said:

In other words, you're just pissed you won't be able to discriminate against gays. You have no problem with "protections" with groups you agree with.

Click to expand...

So you cannot find anything wrong with my position, so you have to resort to baseless personal attacks. Thanks for admitting your defeat on the issue.

Fisher said:

So you cannot find anything wrong with my position, so you have to resort to baseless personal attacks. Thanks for admitting your defeat on the issue.

Click to expand...

It's not a personal attack, it's the truth. Your position is completely hypocritical. You just want to discriminate against gays.

You also have a reading comprehension problem if you think what I said was an admission of defeat bigot.

TheNextEra said:

It's not a personal attack, it's the truth. Your position is completely hypocritical. You just want to discriminate against gays.

You also have a reading comprehension problem if you think what I said was an admission of defeat bigot.

Click to expand...

It is an admission of defeat and there is nothing hypocritical in my position. If you want an effective solution, then it becomes a solution that requires government actors. The Trial Lawyers make a lot of money off sheeple. Businesses have insurance against lawsuits. Businesses fear having a state investigator walk through their front door by a magnitude of 10 over being sued. Most state investigators do not confine themselves to the original complaint, and true or not, there is a perception that they will not leave until they find something whether that be in the business or in the owners/managers of the businesses personal business. I proposed an effective solution. You support a symbolic, piecemeal solution. Your ignorance of business concerns is the root of YOUR hypocrisy and YOUR comprehension problems. You were defeated before you ever responded. Have a blessed day.

Henrin said:

It's was '64. What happens to a business that discriminates against a member of a protected group? What is the reason for that?

Click to expand...

I stand corrected, by a year.
what happens? the business gets sued and/or pays a fine.
What's the reason? To prevent discrimination, of course. It used to be quite legal to have an all white male workforce, and some companies did exactly that.

Fiddytree said:

The question isn't whether conceptions of African Americans impacted politics, but rather if the 3/5 compromise was actually a statement that suggested either: 1) Black people are 3/5 a person 2) Slaves are 3/5 people, instead of "slaves for purposes of Representation, shall count as 3/5 per any other freeman." There's a significant difference. The implication you raise is that had the number been lower, this would have accounted for an even lower opinion of black persons, when in fact, it would have held significance in states which had wanted to use its slave population to advance its aims in maintaining or expanding the institution of slavery and related interests. The lower the number, the more anti-slavery, or particularly northern interests would have been served.

Click to expand...

I think you're splitting hairs. Yes, I get it. The pro-slavery South had an interest in slaves being seen as being worth the same as freemen which is in contradiction to the belief that they arrived at such a number in order to lessen the... let's call it... "human worth" of slaves - however, we all know that in the end there was an agreement on the worth of a slave and that worth was 3/5ths of a free man. That aside, it could easily be argued that the societal opinions and effects which resulted from the compromise were equal to those which would have existed if the compromised had been created with the goal of "lessening" the worth of slaves. I'm not sure if I'm making sense - I have the idea in my head, I'm just not sure whether it's working on writing.

Hatuey said:

I think you're splitting hairs. Yes, I get it. The pro-slavery South had an interest in slaves being seen as being worth the same as freemen which is in contradiction to the belief that they arrived at such a number in order to lessen the... let's call it... "human worth" of slaves - however, we all know that in the end there was an agreement on the worth of a slave and that worth was 3/5ths of a free man. That aside, it could easily be argued that the societal opinions and effects which resulted from the compromise were equal to those which would have existed if the compromised had been created with the goal of "lessening" the worth of slaves. I'm not sure if I'm making sense - I have the idea in my head, I'm just not sure whether it's working on writing.

Click to expand...

There is, without doubt, questions about the sincerity of Americans (white that were granted citizenship) toward African Americans. Without question. The problem with using the 3/5 compromise to indict the Constitution for being pro-slavery or anti-black in that particular manner is isn't a particularly good example. A better argument surrounding the 3/5 compromise would be that by even allowing 60% to be counted, the Constitution was enabling/certifying slavery. The other side of that debate would of course argue that it was not 100%, therefore this was a victory.

If we are to make the point that those in power viewed the black man and woman in lesser terms, we would have an assortment of workable examples. This compromise has concepts that may mirror societal viewpoints, but its intent and outcome do not really support the argument commonly made.

Hatuey said:

I think you're splitting hairs. Yes, I get it. The pro-slavery South had an interest in slaves being seen as being worth the same as freemen which is in contradiction to the belief that they arrived at such a number in order to lessen the... let's call it... "human worth" of slaves - however, we all know that in the end there was an agreement on the worth of a slave and that worth was 3/5ths of a free man. That aside, it could easily be argued that the societal opinions and effects which resulted from the compromise were equal to those which would have existed if the compromised had been created with the goal of "lessening" the worth of slaves. I'm not sure if I'm making sense - I have the idea in my head, I'm just not sure whether it's working on writing.

Click to expand...

I think it began sooner than the 3/5th compromise. Early on, it was different. One of the first colonial slave owners was black and I have seen it cited that 20% of blacks owned their own homes, married white women, etc in settlement times, but then they were deemed "aliens" so the land could be taken from them by others who wanted it. It is always more about greed and who has the most power. The rest is just how they sell it to people. Whites suffered under indentured servitude and peonage as well. money wins. money always wins.