New law would FORCE everyone to hire gays

[JimG]

The wording of this is parallel to other civil rights laws. It does not force you to hire gays. It does give “protected class” status to homosexuals and those with gender identity issues. In practical terms this means that if you hire a “straight” person in a job where a homosexual applied, you could get sued.

You WILL get sued! Back when I was in a position to fill job vacancies, I got EEOC complaints filed nearly every time a vacancy was filled. The women applicants alleged sex discrimination; the minority applicants alleged racial discrimination; the non-minority applicants alleged quota-filling. When there are numerous applicants and only one job to fill, nobody’s happy (except the one hired), and nobody thinks you made an honest decision.

 

[Mirdath]

No…as far as natural law is concerned.

From a Catholic point of view.

Really? Would you please produce an exposition of the natural law from a Hindu and a Nazi, so that I can see how different they are?

Two words: castes (for Hinduism); Aryans (for Nazism, and a nigh-completely different term from the original meaning). I assume you’re familiar with both terms. Fortunately Hinduism seems to be gaining some flexibility on the idea of what caste status means.

They kind of remind me of Freud in that way:
“. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.”

Yet even from the Catholic perspective, reproduction is not the sole function of sex. Were it only so, how joyless and inhuman would it be?

Just like an atheist to be blinded by Catholic dogma.

I’m not an atheist

Maybe you can, maybe you can’t. If your government doesn’t grant you the right to, you can’t…

…unless you’re arguing for the natural right of revolt…but you don’t believe in that…only the state can give you rights…

We are the state. We naturally have the ability to change its structure and laws. The state is set to govern us by common agreement. If it does not serve all, it may as well serve none.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Do you think if we had Catholic pride parades we could get “protected class” status, oh wait, we do have parades, St. Patricks day for one. We need to file a class action to get our equal rights.

 

[GreenJeans]

Some of the natural lawyers I’ve heard lecture, like J. Budziszewski, have referred to themselves as such.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to them as such.

If you want to sign up for the newsletter by the same name, you can click here.

BUT…if you *really *want, I suppose you could also call them natural law jurists or natural law scholars/philosophers/thinkers.
I’m not aware of anything he’s published; would you please point me to a link giving his views?

By way of example, here’s a link to some of John Finnis’ work. He’s arguably the most influential natural lawyer of last and this century.

I’m not aware of any recognized natural law scholar who advocates such, and I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the subject. If they’re out there, they’re not widely read.

God Bless,
RyanL

If natural law is available to all men, why bother with natrural lawyers? That implies it is not readily available.

 

[mesquite_magic]

Not necessarily. Someone could self-identify as being sexually attracted to children - that’s a pedophile. It isn’t illegal until they act on that attraction. Up until then it is just a mental disorder.

Wow. You are right. That is not meant to be sarcastic. I am honetly suprised. Guess that’s why I keep coming back here. Learn something new every day.

The main difference though, is should a pedophile choose to act on their desire, they would be commiting a crime. A homosexual in a consensual adult relationship, would not.

That’s my off topic statement of the night. Thank-you for correcting me.

Kim

 

[Mirdath]

Do you think if we had Catholic pride parades we could get “protected class” status, oh wait, we do have parades, St. Patricks day for one. We need to file a class action to get our equal rights.

Most Catholics have, as far as I can see, forgotten what it is like to be actively persecuted since the days of being thrown to the lions. They make a big deal out of perceived ‘anti-Catholicism’ but it’s nothing like what many other groups experience at the hands of others, including many Catholics.

Also, people know not to mess with Catholics on St Patrick’s for fear of the Irish beatdown
mesquite magic:

The main difference though, is should a pedophile choose to act on their desire, they would be commiting a crime. A homosexual in a consensual adult relationship, would not.

The main difference is that pedophilia is a fetish and not a sexual orientation. Orientation covers hetero through homosexual activity, not particular attributes to which one is attracted. Paraphilias cover those attributes, which range from youth to hair color to feet to balloons and pretty much anything else you can think of, no matter how weird.

 

[RyanL]

Your article talks not about the natural law as such but a legal theory labelled as “natural law”…

*‘Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.

• So your link was to natural law theory in the sense of a “theory of civil law” – which is related to natural law theory in the sense of a “theory of ethics” but it’s also distinct. Natural law as a theory of ethics is the theory that there is a moral law arising out of the nature of things. Natural law as a theory of civil law is the theory that there is some special relationship between the foundations of civil law and the moral law arising out of the nature of things. The moral law arising out of the nature of things is also called simply “the natural law.”

…Remember natural law as a theory of ethics doesn’t have anything to do with the study of legal systems (like the US Constitution for example). These legal systems are what is known as “positive law.”

All right. Time to break it down a bit.

Here’s the nickel tour:

According to NL theory as expressed by Aquinas, there are four types of law:

1. Eternal Law - basically, God’s conception of things
2. Divine Law - what God has revealed to us through Divine Revelation (think 10 Commandments)
3. Natural Law - the law written into our nature as humans and knowable by reason alone (though with error and difficulty). Included are the general precepts to seek the good and avoid evil, to know and to choose, to live in community, to propagate the species, and to preserve self (Aquinas).
4. Human Law - the civil law, including constitutions and statutes. Aquinas might say that HL is an order of reason promulgated by one with proper authority for the common good. How do you figure out what’s in the common good? NL.

According to NL theory, the NL constitutes the boundaries of the HL. If a HL were to be enacted which was outside of the bounds of the NL (like, say, rounding up all the Jews and killing them), that would not be law but rather a perversion of it. It would not be binding, and should be disobeyed.

Are NL and HL distinct concepts? Yes, by their very definition they are distinct.

According to the NL, is the NL morally binding? Yes.

According to the NL, is the HL morally binding? In as much as it is valid law, yes.

For these reasons, I don’t think the distinction you made between a “theory of ethics/morals” and a “theory of civil/human law” isn’t a very good distinction.

Maybe a book? This was one of the texts my instructor, the author, used during the course on Law and Morality I just finished. It’s a popular level reader, if that would be helpful. If you wanted something a little more academic, I would recommend a different book. It’s a much tougher read, but worth it.

What about Positivism or Positive Law?

Positivists (like Austin or Kelsen) assert that law is only the will of the sovereign, whether a single individual, a small group, or the majority. Under the Positivist approach, if a law is enacted it is valid law and must be obeyed. So if the majority happens to pass a law stating that all Jews must be rounded up and killed, it is a valid law and those who are subject to it are compelled to carry it out.

This is part of why the WWII trials were such a difficult thing! The Germans were Positivists! If we tried them *as *Positivists, they would have gotten off scott-free because “they were just following orders” – and those orders were, to the Positivist, valid orders.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

If natural law is available to all men, why bother with natrural lawyers? That implies it is not readily available.

The NL is the same for all, both as to knowledge and as to rectitude. That’s Aquinas paraphrased. He asserts that there are some things that you can’t not know, like the wrong of killing another human being. You may try to suppress this knowledge, but he would say that even the murderer knows the wrong of murder, and even the adulterer knows the wrong of adultery. You may try to rationalize it an justify it (that guy wasn’t really human or perhaps he deserved it), but you know deep down that murder is wrong. Maybe you’ll feel guilty, maybe not, but you will *know *the wrong of murder.

This is not to be confused with infused knowledge – a baby doesn’t know that murder is wrong, just like a baby doesn’t know that 1 + 1 = 2. But the structure of our minds/natures is such that upon learning the matter (whether by reflection or instruction) we can’t un-learn it.

So why do we need natural lawyers?

Good question.

1. While the general precepts of the natural law are the same for all both as to rectitude and as to knowledge, the more detailed precepts are not. They require work, and can be known but only through much difficulty and error. Natural Lawyers are trying to get to these more detailed precepts.
2. Even though we may know the general precepts, we constantly try to evade our moral knowledge (see the justifications and rationalizations given above – call it “concupiscence” or, in Latin, the “fomes peccati”). Natural lawyers work to keep us honest.

Does that help?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

From a Catholic point of view.

From a Natural Law point of view.

Two words: castes (for Hinduism); Aryans (for Nazism, and a nigh-completely different term from the original meaning). I assume you’re familiar with both terms. Fortunately Hinduism seems to be gaining some flexibility on the idea of what caste status means.

1. These aren’t Natural Law theories. I asked for expositions of the Natural Law according to them. That’s not what you gave me.
2. The Nazis claimed that non-Aryans (like Jews and Gypsies) weren’t human. That’s not a disagreement about Natural Law, but a disagreement about ontology.
3. I don’t know enough about Hinduism to say what they believe, so I’ll shut up about them until I read some more.

Yet even from the Catholic perspective, reproduction is not the sole function of sex. Were it only so, how joyless and inhuman would it be?

You went from “reproduction as an aim is put aside” to reproduction as the “sole” function of sex.

Do you see how that’s a straw man misrepresentation?

I’m not an atheist

Perhaps not, but Freud was and that was the point of my statement. This was actually the same view as the American Psychological Association’s until about 35 years ago, when they voted to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. I’m not sure why they voted to remove it, but I know that a “gay gene” hasn’t been found yet.

We are the state.

Here, yes. Not elsewhere. Serfs weren’t the state. Jews in 1942 Germany weren’t the state. We’re lucky.

We naturally have the ability to change its structure and laws.

Since when did “ability” confer a “right”? But, again, see the serfs and Jews example given above. We just happen to be lucky.

The state is set to govern us by common agreement.

Mythical social contract. Even the creators of the theory said that it was a myth.

If it does not serve all, it may as well serve none.

I’m fine with that, but that’s because it’s a Natural Law view.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

This would be bad news for the Boy Scouts. They’re neither a religious or a military organization.

Are we talking getting fired for one’s sexual orientation? Or are we talking getting fired for one’s perverted sexual activity?

Say a homosexual man was admitted to be a Scoutmaster (since there’s no paycheck is it really hiring?). But the man was chaste and gave no indication that he had these sexual tendencies. Then one day he’s seen making out with another man in public.

The next day he’s dismissed from his duties as Scoutmaster.

Was he dismissed for being homosexual? Or was he dismissed for engaging in immoral behavior in public?

That is my point as well. Why do we need to know about disordered sexual dispostions if one does not act on them? I would think if an applicant declares he/she has such tendencies that would imply one wants to act on them.

I linked to the Vatican document that discusses just discrimination for certain cases. The reason there is confusion is because we have a mistaken notion of rights and fairness.

 

[GreenJeans]

That is my point as well. Why do we need to know about disordered sexual dispostions if one does not act on them? I would think if an applicant declares he/she has such tendencies that would imply one wants to act on them.

I linked to the Vatican document that discusses just discrimination for certain cases. The reason there is confusion is because we have a mistaken notion of rights and fairness.

There are many things we do not need to know about. However, we all have freedom of expression and can speak about our religious, political, or sexual dispositions.

 

[fix]

There are many things we do not need to know about. However, we all have freedom of expression and can speak about our religious, political, or sexual dispositions.

I would not deny authentic freedom of expression. What I would deny is the claim one has a right to do what is contrary to the natural law and then claim one must employ such a person as a teacher, or scout leader, or rent a room in their house to them.

 

[mgrobertson79]

I would not deny authentic freedom of expression. What I would deny is the claim one has a right to do what is contrary to the natural law and then claim one must employ such a person as a teacher, or scout leader, or rent a room in their house to them.

If they were not so “in your face” with their sexuality I don’t think it would be such a big deal. Yes I believe homosexuality is gravely disordered and a mental disorder, but if they keep it to themselves it affects only them. When they throw it on society it becomes everyones problem, which it should not be.

 

[Corki]

There are ways to not hire someone- for whatever reason you want- without getting caught for it. You have to make sure the job description is very specific, and it helps to look for people to offer the job to- rather than just open it up for anyone who notices that there is a job opening.

This is true in many cases. With “protected class” status, however, many organziations would have to include sexual orientation in their Affirmative Action plans. That means that if that group is “underrepresented” in the particular company compared to the population, you have to make “affirmative” efforts to resolve the situation. That usually means advertising in special publications likely to attract the type of people who are under-represented. This would effectively force many organizations to advertise in “gay” magazines or web sites.

 

[RyanL]

…but if they keep it to themselves it affects only them…

Medical costs are shared by everyone. Risky behavior of all kinds should be discouraged. STDs are running rampant because all groups are being risky; it just so happens that homosexual men are the most risky of all of these groups, and have the highest suicide rates and the shortest life expectancies. What they’re doing in their bedroom is important because it affects us as a whole. It’s difficult to maintain that whatever goes on in the bedroom affects “only them” anymore.

It’s a societal problem. The “that’s your business” argument just doesn’t hold anymore.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[GreenJeans]

I would not deny authentic freedom of expression. What I would deny is the claim one has a right to do what is contrary to the natural law and then claim one must employ such a person as a teacher, or scout leader, or rent a room in their house to them.

1. Is there a difference between freedom of expression and authentic freedom of expression?
2. Under our laws, one has the freedom to engage in homosexual sexual activity. The SC decided this in the lawrence case.
3. I would do away with all such laws. This includes eliminating the laws that protect Catholics from employment discrimination because they are Catholic. I can’t see why someone who dislikes Catholics and thinks the pope is the anti-Christ should be forced to rent a room or engage them as a scout leader. We should remember that these laws cover just about everyone in some form.

 

[GreenJeans]

If they were not so “in your face” with their sexuality I don’t think it would be such a big deal. Yes I believe homosexuality is gravely disordered and a mental disorder, but if they keep it to themselves it affects only them. When they throw it on society it becomes everyones problem, which it should not be.

Many feel the same way about religion; they don’t want to hear about it. However, as a society we have had the wisdom to allow freedom of expression even if others disagree with the sentiments expressed. Giving a veto to anyone who disagrees with expression would silence all of us.

 

[Mirdath]

1. These aren’t Natural Law theories. I asked for expositions of the Natural Law according to them. That’s not what you gave me.
2. The Nazis claimed that non-Aryans (like Jews and Gypsies) weren’t human. That’s not a disagreement about Natural Law, but a disagreement about ontology.
3. I don’t know enough about Hinduism to say what they believe, so I’ll shut up about them until I read some more.

Yes they are Natural Law theories. They contain ontological problems, among others – but it’s not like Catholic natural law is perfect from an outsider’s point of view either. So none of them is either natural or a binding law. If you want to apply one to yourself, that’s fine, but nobody else has to agree with you and don’t think for a minute you have the right to inflict it on others.

You went from “reproduction as an aim is put aside” to reproduction as the “sole” function of sex.

What?

Here, yes. Not elsewhere. Serfs weren’t the state. Jews in 1942 Germany weren’t the state. We’re lucky.

Oh, they were – though not always able to protect themselves. Have you read of the many peasants’ rebellions? That changed quite a lot in medieval Europe. The name Wat Tyler ring a bell?

We’re not that lucky either, or we’d be off lighting cigars with hundred-dollar bills. We are the serfs, most of us, bought and sold every day and mere numbers to the people who matter.

Medical costs are shared by everyone.

Not until there’s a universal health care plan. Until then, you choose to share them by having your own insurance – and you can opt not to play if you like.

Every group’s behavior is risky. I’ll take the supposed impact of the entire gay population on my insurance over that of heterosexual gun owners. Sex – come to think of it, life itself – is inherently risky and that doesn’t change no matter who your partner is. Do you have any idea how much poor pregnant women add to your premiums? It’s a lot. Do you regret it? And it’s a risk you don’t take either if you’re male.

 

[GreenJeans]

Medical costs are shared by everyone. Risky behavior of all kinds should be discouraged. STDs are running rampant because all groups are being risky; it just so happens that homosexual men are the most risky of all of these groups, and have the highest suicide rates and the shortest life expectancies. What they’re doing in their bedroom is important because it affects us as a whole. It’s difficult to maintain that whatever goes on in the bedroom affects “only them” anymore.

It’s a societal problem. The “that’s your business” argument just doesn’t hold anymore.

God Bless,
RyanL

Medical costs are rising as a function of foolish choices. Consider the fat people. Heart disease, diabetes, joint problems, circulatory problems… And smokers? I’m not sure if the fat cost more than the smokers.

However, fat people and smokers often pay higher insurance premiums. And employers who employ such folks have higher medical usage rates and they pay higher premiums for employer paid health care. Gays also pay higher premiums than straights in otherwise similar situations.

Is it reasnable to say what the fat people eat is everybody’s business?

 

[fix]

1. Is there a difference between freedom of expression and authentic freedom of expression?

Sure. If someone claims they are expressing themselves by walking into a public school naked I would claim that is not legitimate.

1. Under our laws, one has the freedom to engage in homosexual sexual activity. The SC decided this in the lawrence case.

We once allowed chattel slavery. Not all laws are just.

1. I would do away with all such laws. This includes eliminating the laws that protect Catholics from employment discrimination because they are Catholic. I can’t see why someone who dislikes Catholics and thinks the pope is the anti-Christ should be forced to rent a room or engage them as a scout leader. We should remember that these laws cover just about everyone in some form.

I see no great similarity betwen religious affliation and unnatural acts?