• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay-rights bill clears first hurdle in Senate

That's not how discrimination laws work and nobody is suggesting they should work that way. I thought the straw man reference would make that obvious, sorry.

some people simply just dont understand that fact
dealing in fantasy is better for some, they cant separate facts and fantasy and dont know the difference between what the law actually does and states and what some people choose to practice on thier own that has ZERO to do with the law. Its funny. The fact is LEGAL AA/EO by definition doesnt allow preference, this fact will never change.
 
Dude, unclench your pucker.

No, Republicans aren't there to help Democrats win; however, they are in government to govern properly. Extending equal rights and protection under law to all Americans is the right thing.

Well unpucker your hacks on the Hill, because I don't remember them cooperating when Bush was President.
 
Well unpucker your hacks on the Hill, because I don't remember them cooperating when Bush was President.

Yeah, because Democrats didn't vote for Bush's tax cuts (they did), the War in Iraq (they did), or Medicare Part D (they did). You have a pretty selective memory of Democratic cooperation.

I'm not a Democrat, by the way.
 
Yeah, because Democrats didn't vote for Bush's tax cuts (they did), the War in Iraq (they did), or Medicare Part D (they did). You have a pretty selective memory of Democratic cooperation.

I'm not a Democrat, by the way.

Then spent 8 years denying it.
 
ENDA does not set up a special classe. ALL sexual orientations and gender identities are protected.
 
ENDA does not set up a special classe. ALL sexual orientations and gender identities are protected.

shhhhhhh dont use facts and logic
 
It's how Affirmative Action works.
No it isn't.

Discrimination laws are essentially an anti-business crutch that forces the government bully into private practice. It also has the ancillary little drawback of making every moron, idiot, and jackass speculate as to why he was fired or wasn't hired.

I'm not authoritarian like you. I don't like being told what to do, what to think, and who to hire.

Nobody has ever told me who to hire. I'm sorry the inability to fire all women simply for being women bothers you so much.
 
History will condemn Boehner for this not going into law, as i do now.
 
That also happened at the law school of my alma mater. There was a big local outcry about it.

Yeah but that's patently absurd that a graduate school is responsible for america's segregation and prejudice, whereas this bill is designed to protect people from *direct* discrimination. By the way, it's way less racially diverse nowadays as a result. But then, that doesn't bother me because i know there is more to diversity than skin color.

Although it might upset you that the B-school app now asks sexual preference on the 1st page...
 
Last edited:
Yeah but that's patently absurd that a graduate school is responsible for america's segregation and prejudice, whereas this bill is designed to protect people from *direct* discrimination. By the way, it's way less racially diverse nowadays as a result. But then, that doesn't bother me because i know there is more to diversity than skin color.

That's just the natural pecking order of things. Think it's white where you are? Hop 23 north up to East Lansing and take a look around. If that place was any more white, it'd glow at night.

It's really not right when you have to "darken up" your roster in order to save face from the people who want a soapbox. I mean, I don't think white people are making huge stinks at Grambling or Howard or Morehouse. I don't see why Michigan Law really needed to cater to the gods of the ecumenical PC movement.
 
That's just the natural pecking order of things. Think it's white where you are? Hop 23 north up to East Lansing and take a look around. If that place was any more white, it'd glow at night.

It's really not right when you have to "darken up" your roster in order to save face from the people who want a soapbox. I mean, I don't think white people are making huge stinks at Grambling or Howard or Morehouse. I don't see why Michigan Law really needed to cater to the gods of the ecumenical PC movement.

I think they said it adds to education to have racial diversity, but the pathetic thing of that argument is all the Asian kids who hang out only together and only speak their own language. I rarely see mixed races interacting, so i have to call BS on that. Can't change human behavior, we agree on that, but it's still a separate argument from ENDA. In fact, ENDA is an argument for meritocracy, because it demands that only job performance is a factor, as it should be.
 
I think they said it adds to education to have racial diversity, but the pathetic thing of that argument is all the Asian kids who hang out only together and only speak their own language. I rarely see mixed races interacting, so i have to call BS on that. Can't change human behavior, we agree on that, but it's still a separate argument from ENDA. In fact, ENDA is an argument for meritocracy, because it demands that only job performance is a factor, as it should be.

The problem isn't about an actual solution, but the perception of a solution - or at least the perception of coming up with a solution. The problem with human science is that it's...human - flawed by nature.

People, by and large, are stupid. They need to be told what to think. They need token gestures thrown their way, and then convinced that those tokens prove that things are happening.

The powers that be like to use numbers to drive home a point to the lesser individuals who think that it's proof of things. This much white, this much black, this much "miscellaneous". See? Problem fixed. It's not...but see? Problem fixed!
 
No it isn't.



Nobody has ever told me who to hire. I'm sorry the inability to fire all women simply for being women bothers you so much.

better yet to further prove how uneducated people are on this topic about AA/EO

if they give you any examples of what they think is special treatment just simply ask them what LAW made that happen and what LAW is violated if that special treatment is stopped and the entertainment will begin
 
Not comparable. Anti-discrimination laws don't apply when the status is a "bona fide occupational qualification" (if I remember the business 101 terminology right). The point of hooters, or a strip club, is scantily clad women, so that's a qualification for the waitress/dancers. However, the same is not true of the person who cleans the bathroom at a hooters, so hooters can't disqualify you from janitorial employment solely for being a man.

Similarly, being able to climb steps and lift heavy things is a requirement to be a fedex delivery person, so they get around some of the laws against discriminating against the physically disabled.

"Being white" isn't an actual qualification for any position I can think of.
Good points on the Hooters argument.
So, let's say Medieval Times wouldn't hire a black man because the common picture most people have of a knight from the medieval times is a white guy, would you support that?
 
Good points on the Hooters argument.
So, let's say Medieval Times wouldn't hire a black man because the common picture most people have of a knight from the medieval times is a white guy, would you support that?

Absurd.



:D

But more seriously, that one is a bit harder to answer because it's starting from something inherently subjective and difficult to measure. The "common picture" that "most people" have might be a white guy, but if you asked people "Do you think there were any knights of African descent in the middle ages," most people would probably answer "yeah, there probably were some." Upon seeing a black man in armor, how many patrons of Medieval Times so much as raise an eyebrow? Let alone actually do anything that might affect the business. I mean, have you ever seen a black man play a knight in any form of media and thought to yourself, "A black knight? Pshaw!" Yeah, didn't think so. Now imagine yourself refusing to eat there because one of the knights is a black guy. Didn't think so either.

Personally, I wouldn't approve at all, and I really doubt such a thing would hold up in court. Because the lawyers are going to ask the same questions I did, and more. Short of having a large enough statistical sample to definitively show that on nights where black knights perform, business suffers, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that "being white" is a legitimate job requirement to put on a suit of armor and entertain people.
 
Absurd.



:D

But more seriously, that one is a bit harder to answer because it's starting from something inherently subjective and difficult to measure. The "common picture" that "most people" have might be a white guy, but if you asked people "Do you think there were any knights of African descent in the middle ages," most people would probably answer "yeah, there probably were some." Upon seeing a black man in armor, how many patrons of Medieval Times so much as raise an eyebrow? Let alone actually do anything that might affect the business. I mean, have you ever seen a black man play a knight in any form of media and thought to yourself, "A black knight? Pshaw!" Yeah, didn't think so. Now imagine yourself refusing to eat there because one of the knights is a black guy. Didn't think so either.

Personally, I wouldn't approve at all, and I really doubt such a thing would hold up in court. Because the lawyers are going to ask the same questions I did, and more. Short of having a large enough statistical sample to definitively show that on nights where black knights perform, business suffers, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that "being white" is a legitimate job requirement to put on a suit of armor and entertain people.

Granted, this argument would need some statistical data backing it. All I'm saying is that when I think of a knight from medieval times, I don't think of a black dude. That's just me though.
 
Granted, this argument would need some statistical data backing it. All I'm saying is that when I think of a knight from medieval times, I don't think of a black dude. That's just me though.

seriously.... most, if not all, of the knights in medieval times were wealthy land owners or nobles. There weren't very many black dudes in Europe at all. I'd be surprised if there were any "black" knights. Most of the "blacks" in medieval Europe were Moors, as such, their dress and accoutrements would have been different from the stereotypical "medieval Knight"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom