• 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!

Federal judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gays from discrimination

AlbqOwl said:
The rights of gay people should be a given for no other reason than they are people. Of course there is no reason that gays should not live where they choose, work when they qualify for jobs, or just be themselves wherever they are. This should be a cultural reality and part of the national morality.

But I object when gay people's desires and wants are given preference over other people's beliefs and moral center. Others should not be forced to change long standing definitions because gay people want them changed. The baker who does not believe in gay marriage for instance should not be allowed to interfere with that in any way, but neither should he be forced to participate in it in any way. He should not be able to deny a gay person purchase of a dozen doughnuts or cupcakes in the display case and should not refuse to prepare a special order of these for the gay person, but neither should he be forced to put decorations on a cake that he would not normally do nor set up a wedding cake at a gay wedding or anything else against his moral convictions. Likewise the gay baker should not be required to provide services at a Westboro Baptist function or any other function he sees as against his personal beliefs or convictions.

Gay people are absolutely entitled to their beliefs as much as any person is. But gay people should not be privileged to require others to believe in the same way any more than a straight person should be able to demand that gay people be straight, try to get straight, or be punished or ostracized because they are not.

It is not treating all citizens equally if some are forced to provide unusual services to others against their moral convictions. That is granting special privileges to some which skews equality.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that, except that I support the right of private persons who own or operate most public accommodations to discriminate against homosexuals as much as they like. And so do majorities in quite a few states. In those states, the baker in your example would be entirely free to refuse to sell doughnuts to a customer, simply because he believed the customer was a homosexual. Almost nothing in the Constitution prohibits private discrimination, and it is up to each state--within the limits imposed by the First Amendment--to decide how far to restrict it and in what situations.

I haven't read this judge's decision and don't plan to. But the very idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to protect homosexuals is laughable. I reminds me of a majority opinion Justice Stevens once wrote, in which the Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act meant to include carbon dioxide in its definition of "pollutant." It also reminds me of the Court's holding in Obergefell. That rests on the laughable notion that the people who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 meant, when they used the term "due process," to guarantee homosexuals a right to marry each other.
 
Last edited:
backpacker said:
How would they know they were gay. Do people put that on their CV/resume? Seems like a suspect claim as far as the interview goes.
Click to expand...

The study sent identical applications except one had treasurer of a lgbt club listed under extracurriculars and the other had treasurer of something else
 
joG said:
You know? When I stopped sending a CV with the title page stating clearly that I f*** women, I got more interviews. On the other hand, I had three gays on the desk in the bank that all did okay. And that is a good many years ago.
Click to expand...

Oh right because there's nothing between that and facebook stalking someone or whatever. I'm tired of explaining **** to strawman garbage. Look it up yourself
 
chromium said:
The study sent identical applications except one had treasurer of a lgbt club listed under extracurriculars and the other had treasurer of something else
Click to expand...

I enjoy how you don't see how that is a red flag that has nothing to do with negative views towards gays.

It's like putting president of some feminist group on your resume. All I'm thinking about is how much of a pain in the ass the person might be.
 
chromium said:
Oh right because there's nothing between that and facebook stalking someone or whatever. I'm tired of explaining **** to strawman garbage. Look it up yourself
Click to expand...

What do you mean stalk? That's more due diligence.
 
Henrin said:
I enjoy how you don't see how that is a red flag that has nothing to do with negative views towards gays.

It's like putting president of some feminist group on your resume. All I'm thinking about is how much of a pain in the ass the person might be.
Click to expand...

Bigots will see it that way, yes, and should not be in charge of anything. That's why the south and midwest showed the biggest levels of discrimination. As the study justifies this method, "I chose an experience in a gay community organization that could not be easily dismissed as irrelevant to a job application," Tilcsik writes. "Thus, instead of being just a member of a gay or lesbian campus organization, the applicant served as the elected treasurer for several semesters, managing the organization's financial operations."

The second resume Tilcsik sent listed experience in the "Progressive and Socialist Alliance" in place of the gay organization. Since employers are likely to associate both groups with left-leaning political views, Tilcsik could separate any "gay penalty" from the effects of political discrimination. "

Oh look, they anticipated your bull**** excuse to discriminate. Apparently being gay is 40% less likely to be granted an interview at a white collar job than a socialist. Try explaining that one, since you hate both

I suppose to you it would be better if this applicant had sat on his ass doing nothing
 
joG said:
What do you mean stalk? That's more due diligence.
Click to expand...

God my point is an applicant can state NOTHING at all in the resume to indicate sexuality and the employer will STILL find it out and still discriminate, and you will still be defending it
 
chromium said:
Bigots will see it that way, yes, and should not be in charge of anything. As the study justifies this method, "I chose an experience in a gay community organization that could not be easily dismissed as irrelevant to a job application," Tilcsik writes. "Thus, instead of being just a member of a gay or lesbian campus organization, the applicant served as the elected treasurer for several semesters, managing the organization's financial operations."

The second resume Tilcsik sent listed experience in the "Progressive and Socialist Alliance" in place of the gay organization. Since employers are likely to associate both groups with left-leaning political views, Tilcsik could separate any "gay penalty" from the effects of political discrimination. "

Oh look, they anticipated your bull**** excuse to discriminate. Apparently being gay is 40% less likely to be granted an interview at a white collar job than a socialist. Try explaining that one, since you hate both

I suppose to you it would be better if this applicant had sat on his ass doing nothing
Click to expand...

Tl; dr past the first sentence. Feminists that are heavily involved in the movement are notorious for being a pain in the ass. The same exact reality is true for gays heavily involved in the LGBT movement and in both cases many employers will try to avoid it if you give them the chance.
 
Henrin said:
Tl; dr past the first sentence. Feminists that are heavily involved in the movement are notorious for being a pain in the ass. The same exact reality is true for gays heavily involved in the LGBT movement and in both cases many employers will try to avoid it if you give them the chance.
Click to expand...

kindly gtfo of my thread
 
chromium said:
God my point is an applicant can state NOTHING at all in the resume to indicate sexuality and the employer will STILL find it out and still discriminate, and you will still be defending it
Click to expand...

They found out by going to their facebook page?
 
chromium said:
God my point is an applicant can state NOTHING at all in the resume to indicate sexuality and the employer will STILL find it out and still discriminate, and you will still be defending it
Click to expand...

Defending what?
 
Anyone replying to Henrin forfeits a reply from me, fair warning
 
Henrin said:
They found out by going to their facebook page?
Click to expand...

Only goes to show that Facebook pages should be compatible to the life you want to lead.
 
Henrin said:
I love how we keep expanding a law that violates the right to association, the right to property, and the right to your own labor.

You know a society is ****ed when they rationalize forced commerce by appealing to government licensing.
Click to expand...

Yea letting blacks sit at the lunch counter, get a room at a hotel or sit at the front of the bus is truly horrendous. Don't get me started on that Loving v. Virginia ruling. What a joke.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Yea letting blacks sit at the lunch counter, get a room at a hotel or sit at the front of the bus is truly horrendous. Don't get me started on that Loving v. Virginia ruling. What a joke.
Click to expand...

In each of those cases, there was an actual law requiring the discrimination.
 
matchlight said:
I agree with most of that, except that I support the right of private persons who own or operate most public accommodations to discriminate against homosexuals as much as they like. And so do majorities in quite a few states. In those states, the baker in your example would be entirely free to refuse to sell doughnuts to a customer, simply because he believed the customer was a homosexual. Almost nothing in the Constitution prohibits private discrimination, and it is up to each state--within the limits imposed by the First Amendment--to decide how far to restrict it and in what situations.

I haven't read this judge's decision and don't plan to. But the very idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to protect homosexuals is laughable. I reminds me of a majority opinion Justice Stevens once wrote, in which the Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act meant to include carbon dioxide in its definition of "pollutant." It also reminds me of the Court's holding in Obergefell. That rests on the laughable notion that the people who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 meant, when they used the term "due process," to guarantee homosexuals a right to marry each other.
Click to expand...

But you see, I believe a moral and just society would not discriminate against a gay person just because the person was gay. I think educated people know that being gay is not a choice. And as long as gay people do not make assholes or obnoxious jerks out of themselves, they should be welcome anywhere just like everybody else is welcome unless they are assholes or obnoxious jerks. But the gay person who is an asshole or obnoxious jerk also has to understand that he or she is being rejected or excluded because of that and not because he or she is gay.

I for instance will accept you for who and what you are no matter what that is so long as you do not presume to violate my rights or my peace and accommodate whatever society you are in. I don't require that you like me, appreciate me, agree with me, or have anything to do with me, but so long as I am behaving myself, I would expect me to sell me a dozen doughnuts that you have for sale in your bakery. But if your merchandise does not include doughnuts with pink widget decorations and you do not approve of pink widgets for whatever reason, you should not have to make doughnuts with those decorations just because I demand them. You should have every right to decline that order.

You wouldn't be discriminating against me when you refuse the order, but you would be discriminating against pink widgets. And that should be anybody's right to do no matter who or what a person is.
 
chromium said:
The study sent identical applications except one had treasurer of a lgbt club listed under extracurriculars and the other had treasurer of something else
Click to expand...

Interesting, but I have trouble believing that is as widespread a problem as the a third of all gays and lesbians. There is only one LGBT treasurer :2razz:

I kind of knew the answer somewhat before I posted the question, or suspected this response. I know employers who purposefully toss applicants whose resume have anything to do with african american studies or related organizations. They may not turn away blacks generally, but have no interest in having someone they think might be political or an activist, so it is possible that your study may assume that it was because they were gay when it could also be because of the nature of the organizations as being, for lack of a better term, trouble-makers.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Plenty of places on this forum.
Click to expand...

Never seen him say any such thing. I've seen plenty of people think that allowing a business to hire and fire as it sees fit, and serve or not serve customers as they see fit, is the same as advocating Jim Crow laws requiring discrimination, though, as I suspect you are doing here.
 
chromium said:
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews

"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.

Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."

This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy

So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'

That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?
Click to expand...


My take is that's what I have been saying for years now and so have many scholars, lawyers and some court precedent already and yes its completely logical. Sex is protected and that includes gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. This was already established in some gay right cases and brought up during gay marriage.

Eventually this is how it will be nationally and sex will encompass all those things just like it should because that's the logical application.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Yea letting blacks sit at the lunch counter, get a room at a hotel or sit at the front of the bus is truly horrendous. Don't get me started on that Loving v. Virginia ruling. What a joke.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom