Question concerning gay pride parades

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Back to the board after the weekend. Thanks for the reply.

(1) On whether limiting antidiscrimination protection to some orientations and not others would lead to the law being “struck down,” again this is private employment. Private employers can hire as they please unless there’s a form of discrimination forbidden by some statute. The federal equal protection clause does not apply to private employment; there’s no general principle that employment decisions have to be fair, or even sensible.

What about State and local “discrimination” laws.???

As I said in the other post, if someone is not in the class protected by the statute, they’re not protected.

And as I said "Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. If a “class” is not specified if could be included. Other “classes” could argue for the status of “Sexual Orientation” to make charges of discrimination.

(2) I don’t know what motive gays might have for not including other “orientations.”

I support equal rights for gays and I support exclusion of pedophilia because I support the employer’s right to not hire that person (at least under some circumstances), and also because that’s the only way such a law will pass. The really hard core anti-gays have promoted the scare tactic of employers being forced to hire child molesters, and enough people seem to believe it.

Probably because it is a very real possibility. A child molester (Sexually oriented towards children) could maintain that his/her orientation is not conduct and therefore should be hired. A state law forbidding discrimination based on sexual “orientation” would then REQUIRE a private school to hire a child molester.

(3) On this proposal:

**“This policy shall not be construed to legitimize or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest.” **

As I understand it, employers can refuse to hire someone, or fire someone, for conduct anyway if orientation is protected, even without this clause. That’s just common sense; as you said, conduct is not orientation.

.

Then there should be no objection to the “policy clause”. If anything it would eliminate a lot of frivolous law suits.

 

[signit]

What about State and local “discrimination” laws.???

And as I said "Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. If a “class” is not specified if could be included. Other “classes” could argue for the status of “Sexual Orientation” to make charges of discrimination.

Probably because it is a very real possibility. A child molester (Sexually oriented towards children) could maintain that his/her orientation is not conduct and therefore should be hired. A state law forbidding discrimination based on sexual “orientation” would then REQUIRE a private school to hire a child molester.

Then there should be no objection to the “policy clause”. If anything it would eliminate a lot of frivolous law suits.

 

[signit]

What about State and local “discrimination” laws.???

I meant to say that private employers may hire as they please in the absence of federal/state local laws.

In other words, courts can’t just invent rights. If it’s not in the statute, the employer can do it.

And as I said "Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions. If a “class” is not specified if could be included. Other “classes” could argue for the status of “Sexual Orientation” to make charges of discrimination.

First of all, “orientation” (1) means inclination rather than behavior, and (2) refers to gender orientation rather than, e.g., pedophilia. This is the standard definition in the social science literature.

Discussion of the term “orientation”:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/14/steve-king/rep-steve-king-claims-federal-hate-crime-law-would/

In addition, the definition would be further limited by how it’s defined in the statute.

In the legislation proposed last year, it was defined as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.”

beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/815/text

It may be a bit confusing because CAF posters often use the term “homosexuality” to refer to behavior. But, in this definition, “homosexuality,” “heterosexuality,” and “bisexuality” are all subcategories of orientation

I also don’t see how a class that’s “not specified” can be “included.” In the example I gave earlier about age discrimination, even though the statute says “age,” it’s further defined (age 40 and up) and those not in the protected class are not included.

Probably because it is a very real possibility. A child molester (Sexually oriented towards
children) could maintain that his/her orientation is not conduct and therefore should be hired. A state law forbidding discrimination based on sexual “orientation” would then REQUIRE a private school to hire a child molester.

A pedophile (one whose attraction is underage persons), I maintain would not be protected for the reasons above, either because the statute would specifically exclude pedophilia or define “orientation” into categories not including pedophilia, or because a court would find that it’s not an “orientation” at all.

As for an actual child molester, I find it unbelievable that any employer would be forced to hire such a person, and possibly put their clients at risk and set themselves up for huge legal liability. That would seem like a huge legitimate reason for an employer not to hire someone, just as they could refuse to hire a person convicted for embezzlement for a position handling money.

Then there should be no objection to the “policy clause”. If anything it would eliminate a lot of frivolous law suits.

That might work, if for example, it said something like “Nothing in this statute protects behavior . . .”. But I still say it wouldn’t be necessary.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I meant to say that private employers may hire as they please in the absence of federal/state local laws.

In other words, courts can’t just invent rights.

But they do!

There is no constitutional basis to assert that gender identity or sexual orientation is a civil right. Yet courts have “interpreted” rights into being by judicial diktat.

First of all, “orientation” (1) means inclination rather than behavior, and (2) refers to gender orientation rather than, e.g., pedophilia. This is the standard definition in the social science literature.

Discussion of the term “orientation”:

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/14/steve-king/rep-steve-king-claims-federal-hate-crime-law-would/

In addition, the definition would be further limited by how it’s defined in the statute.

In the legislation proposed last year, it was defined as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.”

beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/815/text

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By logical definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered. Why?

It may be a bit confusing because CAF posters often use the term “homosexuality” to refer to behavior. But, in this definition, “homosexuality,” “heterosexuality,” and “bisexuality” are all subcategories of orientation

Even as subcategories of orientation the definition of homosexuality remains:

Same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual is anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

I also don’t see how a class that’s “not specified” can be “included.” In the example I gave earlier about age discrimination, even though the statute says “age,” it’s further defined (age 40 and up) and those not in the protected class are not included.

As long as courts, rather than the legislature, are dealing with this subject anything can be redefined.

A pedophile (one whose attraction is underage persons), I maintain would not be protected for the reasons above, either because the statute would specifically exclude pedophilia or define “orientation” into categories not including pedophilia, or because a court would find that it’s not an “orientation” at all.

As for an actual child molester, I find it unbelievable that any employer would be forced to hire such a person, and possibly put their clients at risk and set themselves up for huge legal liability. That would seem like a huge legitimate reason for an employer not to hire someone, just as they could refuse to hire a person convicted for embezzlement for a position handling money.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Because of current public opinion the gay community must obscure this distinction. Otherwise homosexuality and pedophilia are equal as orientations. This FACT would certainly reduce public and political perception of the gay community and prolong the goal of social acceptance of homosexuality.

 

[signit]

Back to this. Seems like only one other person and myself are still participating.

But they do!

There is no constitutional basis to assert that gender identity or sexual orientation is a civil right. Yet courts have “interpreted” rights into being by judicial diktat.

Courts have arguably done this in the context of government discrimination, where there’s an Equal Protection Clause (i.e., same-sex marriage).

I still maintain they can’t do that in the private employment context.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By logical definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations. The “gay” movement, however, arbitrarily recognizes only four orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered. Why?

. . .

Even as subcategories of orientation the definition of homosexuality remains:

Same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a homosexual is anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

. . .

As long as courts, rather than the legislature, are dealing with this subject anything can be redefined.

. . .

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Because of current public opinion the gay community must obscure this distinction. Otherwise homosexuality and pedophilia are equal as orientations. This FACT would certainly reduce public and political perception of the gay community and prolong the goal of social acceptance of homosexuality.

Again, this is your definition of “homosexuality,” as conduct. Posters on this forum commonly say “homosexuality” when they mean “conduct.”

But in this definition, it’s a subcategory of orientation.

And again, if there’s all this concern that employers will have to hire pedophiles, why hasn’t this ever happened in any of the gay rights states? You’d think by now some enterprising pedophile would have made the argument that pedophilia is an “orientation,” or that their “conduct” should be protected as a form of “homosexuality.”

As I said, I think this hysteria about pedophilia is dreamed up by the hard core anti-gays (the “God hates gays” crowd, and some others) who just oppose any protection for gays whatsoever and resort to scare tactics. Well of course people don’t want a Catholic school to hire a convicted child molester, so they make that the focus of the argument. And yet there are Catholic and others who don’t hate gays but buy into the hysteria.

 

[Alexandra_Venti]

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation

Anti-scientific nonsense

sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes

SEXual orientation deals with a hardwired attraction towards a specific SEX.

Homosexual- towards same-sex.
Heterosexual- towards opposite sex.
Bisexual - towards both (might be not at the same time, mind you, it’s fluid)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Back to this. Seems like only one other person and myself are still participating.
signit;12252853:

Courts have arguably done this in the context of government

discrimination, where there’s an Equal Protection Clause (i.e., same-sex marriage).

I still maintain they can’t do that in the private employment context.

It is done all the time in California.
Discrimination Prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Administration

The FEHA prohibits employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation based upon race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability (including AIDS and HIV), mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), age (40 or older), or **sexual orientation **

(21) (heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality). (22)

Entities and Persons Covered by the FEHA

Generally, any employer regularly employing five or more persons is covered by the FEHA. Such employers include the state, (29) cities, counties, other government bodies and private employers. All governmental employers are covered under the FEHA regardless of size.

It IS done in the private employment context.

Again, this is your

definition of “homosexuality,” as conduct. Posters on this forum commonly say “homosexuality” when they mean “conduct.”

But in this definition, it’s a subcategory of orientation.

My definition of homosexuality, and that of other posters, here on the forum is both logical and intuitively sound. It was the universal accepted definition until gay activists began re-defining it as as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality.

Homosexuality can be labeled or described as a “sexual orientation” but its definition remains same-gender sexual conduct.

And again, if there’s all this concern that employers will have to hire pedophiles, why hasn’t this ever happened in any of the gay rights states? You’d think by now some enterprising pedophile would have made the argument that pedophilia is an “orientation,” or that their “conduct” should be protected as a form of “homosexuality.”

As I said, I think this hysteria about pedophilia is dreamed up by the hard core anti-gays (the “God hates gays” crowd, and some others) who just oppose any protection for gays whatsoever and resort to scare tactics. Well of course people don’t want a Catholic school to hire a convicted child molester, so they make that the focus of the argument. And yet there are Catholic and others who don’t hate gays but buy into the hysteria.

It Begins: Pedophiles Call for Same Rights as Homosexuals

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals."

patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/#Z7gLQMWk5jgD6jUY.99

Hysteria…??? More like: “We told you so…”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

signit;12252853:

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals."

patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/#Z7gLQMWk5jgD6jUY.99

Hysteria…??? More like: “We told you so…”

I believe it. The thing about this pedophilia is that there are two kinds, the **really really **creepy ones who go for very young children, and the less (but still creepy ones) who go for underage teenagers.

I still maintain that a lot of underage teenagers are recruited and molded by gay adults, both male and female. I know this happened to my sister when she was about 15 years old and “passing” as an adult in lesbian bars.

No matter what your “orientation” is, it is still a crime to have sex with a minor, no matter how “mature” they look.

No matter if you are gay or straight, if you misuse a minor, you are actually a pedophile, according to the law.

 

[signit]

[It is done all the time in California.
Discrimination Prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Administration

It IS done in the private employment context.

Once again, though, this is pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an act of the state legislature. It’s not a court making up rights out of nowhere.

The point I was making is that courts can’t regulate private employment in the absence of a statute by the legislature.

Courts can’t get involved if gays are fired from their jobs, unless they’re in a state or municipality with an explicit antidiscrimination provision.

[My definition of homosexuality, and that of other posters, here on the forum is both logical and intuitively sound. It was the universal accepted definition until gay activists began re-defining it as as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality.

Homosexuality can be **labeled

or described as a “sexual orientation” but its definition remains same-gender sexual conduct.
[/quote]

What really matters, though, is how a court would interpret it.

It’s unlikely that a court would say, “This person is a convicted child molester. This person performed same-gender sexual conduct; therefore he is a “homosexual,” and since “homosexuality” is an “orientation” under the statute, you can’t discriminate against him for that job working with young people.”

It Begins: Pedophiles Call for Same Rights as Homosexuals

"Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals."

patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/#Z7gLQMWk5jgD6jUY.99

Hysteria…??? More like: “We told you so…”

They may try to make the argument.

Any effort to legalize child molestation ot even to grant “equal rights” to pedophiles or child molesters would not succeed; it would be opposed by just about all of us on this board, including myself, and both the left and right of the political spectrum (including child welfare advocates and just about everyone who’s ever been a parent).

And, as I said, gay rights laws typically exclude pedophilia or define the protected class so as not to include it.

 

[signit]

Zoltan Cobalt;12253826:

I believe it. The thing about this pedophilia is that there are two kinds, the **really really **

creepy ones who go for very young children, and the less (but still creepy ones) who go for underage teenagers.

I still maintain that a lot of underage teenagers are recruited and molded by gay adults, both male and female. I know this happened to my sister when she was about 15 years old and “passing” as an adult in lesbian bars.

No matter what your “orientation” is, it is still a crime to have sex with a minor, no matter how “mature” they look.

No matter if you are gay or straight, if you misuse a minor, you are actually a pedophile, according to the law.

Oh, believe me, I’m not sticking up for that stuff.

Back in middle school we had a child molester hanging around the school.

And when I was a young adult I got harassed by gay men once or twice myself.

I didn’t get “recruited” (didn’t “turn gay” as a result), but the fact remains, that stuff is wrong.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

CHRISTINE77;12253986:

Oh, believe me, I’m not sticking up for that stuff.

Back in middle school we had a child molester hanging around the school.

And when I was a young adult I got harassed by gay men once or twice myself.

I didn’t get “recruited” (didn’t “turn gay” as a result), but the fact remains, that stuff is wrong.

Yes I don’t think pedophilia will ever be sanctioned.

It’s just that it occurs quite a bit with the underage teenagers, and often is never reported or prosecuted.

I think a lot of people think pedophilia only involves very young children, but that is actually the minority of cases, and of course that is a really grave horrible crime and atrocity when it occurs.

But it is still a crime and wrong for adults to prey on underage teens too.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Prior to the early 1970’s homosexuals were arrested and charged with sodomy or other deviant sex crimes. Gay bars were frequently raided and men dressed as women were arrested. Then movements began to decriminalize homosexuality. People said that would NEVER HAPPEN. Guess what???

Gay activists as well as “Free Love” hippies of the 1960’s have been very successful in liberalizing public perception of sexual behavior. Today couples live together…accepted.
Children born out of wedlock…accepted. Divorce rates at record level…accepted. Unusual sexual practice…accepted. Homosexuality…legalized and accepted. Marriage now defined as a “union of people”…(?)

Please don’t tell me pedophilia will never be sanctioned.