Gay rights in the US - charts and all

  • Thread starter Thread starter Midwest88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of these things are quite valid or even positive.

For example:
  1. Prohibiting harassment in school due to sexual orientation.
  2. Allowing hospital visitation.
  3. Prohibiting employment discrimination.
  4. Prohibiting housing discrimination.
 
I think it should be noted that all those blank white spots does not mean that homosexuals do not have rights in those areas. It only means that they do not have special rights for being homosexual spelled out in law. If I did a chart for blonds, it would be all white. That does not mean that blonds have no civil rights.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Some of these things are quite valid or even positive.

For example:
  1. Prohibiting harassment in school due to sexual orientation.
  2. Allowing hospital visitation.
  3. Prohibiting employment discrimination.
  4. Prohibiting housing discrimination.
Click to expand...
#2-4 I understand and support. #1 is a special privilege since bullying is bullying regardless of the reason and who its target. Where are the special treatment for kids who are too tall, short, fat, skinny etc.? No where. I was teased in high school because I had almond eyes. I don’t see schools saying aloud “Don’t make fun of kids with almond eyes.”
 
I think the problem is that there are indeed some areas where there is a problem. But there shouldn’t be a special case for that. We don’t need a law that says “This person with this orientation has this special protection.” We need a law that says “All people, no matter what orientation, or marital status have this right.”
 
Midwest88 said:
#2-4 I understand and support. #1 is a special privilege since bullying is bullying regardless of the reason and who its target. Where are the special treatment for kids who are too tall, short, fat, skinny etc.? No where. I was teased in high school because I had almond eyes. I don’t see schools saying aloud “Don’t make fun of kids with almond eyes.”
Click to expand...
I thought almond eyes were considered an attractive characteristic. 🙂
 
bmullins said:
I think the problem is that there are indeed some areas where there is a problem. But there shouldn’t be a special case for that. We don’t need a law that says “This person with this orientation has this special protection.” We need a law that says “All people, no matter what orientation, or marital status have this right.”
Click to expand...
That would be the Constitution.
 
pnewton said:
I think it should be noted that all those blank white spots does not mean that homosexuals do not have rights in those areas. It only means that they do not have special rights for being homosexual spelled out in law. If I did a chart for blonds, it would be all white. That does not mean that blonds have no civil rights.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… in my opinion, that’s not really accurate. Although I agree with your overall sentiment (that is, all people have the same rights, fundamentally), I think you’re missing something here.

Since we’re both Americans, let’s look at the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]
Click to expand...
Note that this amendment was made specifically for black people. Others may have benefited, but black people were the intended beneficiaries. So do you think that amendment gave black people “special rights”? I don’t think so.

But was it necessary? Yes.

Why? Because the de facto condition was NOT equal rights before that was passed.

So even though everyone has equal rights (morally), that doesn’t mean those rights have always been respected. That is the case here.

For example, at one time, it was legal to fire someone on suspicion that they might have same-sex attraction. Creating a law that says you can’t do that doesn’t give the SSA individual “special rights”, it acknowledges the equal rights they have always had, but ones that were not respected.
 
pnewton said:
That would be the Constitution.
Click to expand...
See, that’s what I mean. That wasn’t always the case with regards to non-whites or women. They had to amend the Constitution to ensure that those people’s rights were respected.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Some of these things are quite valid or even positive.

For example:
  1. Prohibiting harassment in school due to sexual orientation.
  2. Allowing hospital visitation.
  3. Prohibiting employment discrimination.
  4. Prohibiting housing discrimination.
Click to expand...
👍

However there are some on here who would unfortunately disagree with even those :(.
 
pnewton said:
I think it should be noted that all those blank white spots does not mean that homosexuals do not have rights in those areas. It only means that they do not have special rights for being homosexual spelled out in law. If I did a chart for blonds, it would be all white. That does not mean that blonds have no civil rights.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Can you tell me more about discrimination against blonde-haired people in the United States? What is it that moved you about their plight… the dumb blonde jokes?
Click to expand...
The point is just because it isn’t spelled out that a right applies specifically to gays (or blondes) doesn’t mean that they don’t have any rights.
 
pnewton said:
I think it should be noted that all those blank white spots does not mean that homosexuals do not have rights in those areas. It only means that they do not have special rights for being homosexual spelled out in law. If I did a chart for blonds, it would be all white. That does not mean that blonds have no civil rights.
Click to expand...
It is also important to note that several of these criteria have nothing to do with whether an individual is homosexual or not but whether two individuals of the same sex want to be given special recognition as a couple. These are not “gay” rights issues but partnership issues.

Hospital visitation for example, has nothing to do with the homosexual orientation (“gay” identification) of the patient or visitor.
 
I don’t think they need any of those things.

Marriage- completely against this, obviously.

Hospital visits- Is this even a problem? Really? I’m not against a law that says someone can designate someone as their special hospital visitor to afford them any privileges usually granted to a spouse. That’s fine. It really wouldn’t bother me. I’d prefer it if businesses got to set their own rules about how they run their business.

Adoption-completely against this as well. Children deserve a mom and a dad, not some unnatural living arrangement.

Employment and housing-I support the right of business owners and property owners to hire or rent to whomever they feel like hiring or renting to.

Hate crimes and bullying- this is just ridiculous. These things are already against the law and should not be treated as a worse crime because it was committed against a homosexual.
 
white_sheep said:
Hospital visits- Is this even a problem? Really?
Click to expand...
Um, would it bother you if the person you wanted as an emergency contact was legally disallowed from fulfilling that rule just because of their gender? So yeah, it’s a problem.
Employment and housing-I support the right of business owners and property owners to hire or rent to whomever they feel like hiring or renting to.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, I do too. However, it is still a scumbaggy thing to discriminate like this, right? How would you feel about it if the discrimination was based on race or gender?
Hate crimes and bullying- this is just ridiculous. These things are already against the law and should not be treated as a worse crime because it was committed against a homosexual.
Click to expand...
Taking the hate crimes issue out of it, just focus on the bullying. SSA individuals have been fiercely bullied in schools. Sometimes it even leads to self-harm or suicide, as bullying can do. I work in a school, I know.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Um, would it bother you if the person you wanted as an emergency contact was legally disallowed from fulfilling that rule just because of their gender? So yeah, it’s a problem.
Click to expand...
This wasn’t the topic. The topic was that of hospital visitation. There are lots of nurses that I know and we have discussed this, all the hospitals they work for do not have a gay test you have to pass prior to visiting. The rules are generally that visitation be limited to a certain time and sometimes no more than a certain number of visitors at one time.

As far as making emergency medical decisions goes, yes, I believe anyone should be able to appoint a person of their choosing to make those decisions for them. As far as I know we currently have legal provisions that allow for this. Are there some rules that disallow gays from using the same legal provisions? I doubt it.

Are we to allow anyone who claims to be romantically involved with someone to make their emergency medical decisions? I have to say that most parents wouldn’t want some 18 year old girl they’ve never met making the emergency medical decisions for their 18 year old son in college should he need emergency medical treatment solely based on her claim of being his girlfriend.
Theoretically, I do too. However, it is still a scumbaggy thing to discriminate like this, right? How would you feel about it if the discrimination was based on race or gender?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think it is scumbaggy to do what is in the best interest of your business. I don’t care if it is based on race or gender either. There are some jobs where you may want a man, or a woman, or even a person with a certain look. No one ever goes on the warpath against strip clubs or Hooters for not hiring fat old bald men. Why not? Why is it ok for them to discriminate based on gender, waist line, and bust size?
Taking the hate crimes issue out of it, just focus on the bullying. SSA individuals have been fiercely bullied in schools. Sometimes it even leads to self-harm or suicide, as bullying can do. I work in a school, I know.
Click to expand...
Ok, so what? It’s always bad to bully people, and I’m entirely against it. It’s already against the rules to bully gay kids. Can you provide an example of a rule saying it is ok to bully gays, have at it, we think it’s funny? Why should someone be punished more severely if they bully a gay kid than a straight kid? Are gays just too precious to be allowed to be bullied at all, but straight kids are a dime a dozen, go ahead and whip the tar out of that scrawny one over there?
 
You can say the customers are bigots all you want, but if you want to stay in business you have to provide what your customers want. I managed a service business and we had the town broken up into multiple territories, each managed by one service representative. To the Mexican side of town we sent a Mexican who spoke Spanish, to the black part of town we sent a black guy, to the suburban areas we sent a clean cut white guy. Were we wrong to do this? Was I a scumbag for making these decisions? Do you know what happens when you send a black guy with a bit of a ghetto accent and some gold teeth out to work in the homes of white suburban stay at home moms? Problems. They are uncomfortable letting him in their home, and don’t want you to send him back anymore. They will make up stories about things he did or said so you will send someone else next time, or they’ll use a different company. It is no better when you send the clean cut white guy to the black part of town or the black guy to the Mexican part of town. It’s just bad for business. Same thing with hiring a flamboyant funny talking funny acting homosexual to serve customers in a family restaurant, which I have likewise had experience with. He makes people uncomfortable and they don’t want to come back.

The situations are endless. Businesses should be able to employ the people they feel best suited for the job, and even people they feel they want to work with. It’s their decision. I don’t see why they should be robbed of that freedom.
 
Is it ok for hairdressers to preferentially hire homosexual men? If I had a pet restaurant(yes, I mean a restaurant for pets) would it be ok if I preferred hiring homosexual men? Am I not discriminating against normal men?

Of course these things are ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top