LGBT discrimination

[dstebbins]

Section 511(a) and 511(b)(1) of the Americans with Disabilities Act specifically exclude sexual orientation and gender identity from coverage.

Is that constitutional?

I think it violates the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

Not only that, but SCOTUS has ruled numerous times (Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, just to name a few) that the government has no legitimate purpose for discriminating against homosexuals.

Now, you might argue that it's just the private sector, not the government, but it is still the government because...

1) The EEOC is discriminating against gays and birdies in who they provide their services to, and
2) According to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as parts of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, state, local, and (in some cases) federal government agencies are also bound by discrimination laws. Therefore, if they take Congress up on that offer (to exclude gays and birdies from their anti-discrimination policies), then it is still government discrimination.

Add that to the fact that US Code, Title 42, Section 2000d-7(a) clearly states that state and local governments don't even have sovereign immunity when sued in federal court for discrimination, and we're definitely starting to get somewhere.

Since I'm straight, I have no injury to actually claim. Can someone please sue for this?

 

[WORDLIFE!!]

 

[Wrestling Station]

from where I live, we don't care about what the court states. Seriously, we just bomb the motherfucka!

 

[MizMasta3000]

:yawn:

 

[Axis]

If anything, I would find it difficult to fathom that a mandate to the private sector to abstain from any discrimination--based on race, sexual orientation, gender, et al.--would fit within the original intent of the Constitution. Rather, it's likely the result of decades of progressive proposals to expand the role of the government and create a nanny state. The fourteenth amendment is clear:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are two parts here. One, the government cannot enforce a law that requires discrimination, such as the Jim Crow laws that were prevalent in the South. Second, the government may not discriminate in it's actions. That alone is argument enough to prohibit the government (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against any group; the amendment is purposefully ambiguous in order to protect all groups. Policies such as Don't Ask Don't Tell have no standing in the face of the 14th amendment.

However, that should not perverse the actions of the private sector. In fact, any action to proactively protect one minority is a simultaneous act of oppression against another minority, which as the 14th amendment stipulates, is unlawful. If a local business doesn't wish to serve or hire homosexuals, that is their prerogative. It seems as though the country currently has it backwards. The government (though, to be fair, really only of note is the military) is permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, while private businesses are not. The opposite should be reality.

 

[dstebbins]

However, that should not perverse the actions of the private sector. In fact, any action to proactively protect one minority is a simultaneous act of oppression against another minority, which as the 14th amendment stipulates, is unlawful. If a local business doesn't wish to serve or hire homosexuals, that is their prerogative. It seems as though the country currently has it backwards. The government (though, to be fair, really only of note is the military) is permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, while private businesses are not. The opposite should be reality.

Ok, this is the paragraph that I am most concerned with, as this is the paragraph where the crux of your counterargument lies.

However, that should not perverse the actions of the private sector.

I understand that many aspects of the Constitution (e.g. freedom of speech) do not extend to the private sector.

However, is it not government discrimination that the EEOC discriminates in who they provide their services to?

Is it not government discrimination that the district courts will discriminate in who they provide equitable and monetary relief to?

And, furthermore, is it not government discrimination if government agencies have a policy of not hiring transsexuals?

In fact, any action to proactively protect one minority is a simultaneous act of oppression against another minority, which as the 14th amendment stipulates, is unlawful.

Ok, I will not deny that the furthering of any right must come at the expense of another right.

E.g. a homeowner's right to full enjoyment of his property, versus a tresspasser's right to freedom of movement.

However, is the furthering of LGBT rights actually the simultaneous oppression of another MINORITY?

Heterosexuals are the majority class regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers are also the majority class, not because there are more of them, but because of their overwhelming bargaining power in the employment relationship (especially in this economy).

Historically, that's how rights have always been furthered: Like Robin Hood - taking from the rights rich and giving to the rights poor. Historically, the US government has made it its mission in life to balance the rights of the disadvantaged to those of the advantaged. This is no different.

If a local business doesn't wish to serve or hire homosexuals, that is their prerogative. It seems as though the country currently has it backwards. The government (though, to be fair, really only of note is the military) is permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, while private businesses are not. The opposite should be reality.

Should private businesses also be allowed to discriminate against blacks?

What if a restaurant has a policy of only hiring women to be waitresses?
What if a plane company has a policy of only hiring women to be flight attendants?

Should that be legal?

Now that that is out of the way, let me comment on these:

If anything, I would find it difficult to fathom that a mandate to the private sector to abstain from any discrimination--based on race, sexual orientation, gender, et al.--would fit within the original intent of the Constitution.

It's not within the original interpretation of the 14th Amendment that citizens should be discriminated because of something they can't control?

Then, why is it, during all the documentaries make a big deal about blacks achieving economic equality to whites?

Besides, it's a rather moot point, anyway. The bottom line is, these restrictions are already on the private sector. So, the question is, can we, without violating the Constitution, give protections to most disabilities, while explicitly excluding a certain type of disability (gender identity disorder) without stating a rational cause?

 

[Axis]

We seem to agree on the other parts, where LGBT discrimination should not be done in governmental sectors, so I will focus on this part:

Should private businesses also be allowed to discriminate against blacks?
What if a restaurant has a policy of only hiring women to be waitresses?
What if a plane company has a policy of only hiring women to be flight attendants?
Should that be legal?

Yes they should.
Then that is their decision.
Then that is their decision
Yes it should.

When I talk about infringing on the rights of the minority, I am not saying that whites or men are a minority. I am saying that those who believe only blacks should be served are a minority. When the government says, "(business), you can not partake in such-and-such activity," that is a clear infringement on the rights of a property owner. The black who wants to go to McDonadl's has no natural right to enter a building that he does not own. It is the owner's property, and he ought to be able to allow in who he pleases.

This sends people into an uproar, but it is the only logical conclusion to be made when thinking about the natural rights of individuals. The only refutation given is that it's "just wrong, so it should be illegal," but I think it is dangerous to contend that the government should be in the habit of regulating morality. When the government regulates morality, we end up with issues like discrimination of gays, for a quick example.

 

[dstebbins]

We seem to agree on the other parts, where LGBT discrimination should not be done in governmental sectors, so I will focus on this part:



Yes they should.
Then that is their decision.
Then that is their decision
Yes it should.

Where are you from? Arkansas?

I am saying that those who believe only blacks should be served are a minority.

Minorities are not the only ones protected by discrimination laws.

They protect men as well as women. They protect whites as well as blacks.

When the government says, "(business), you can not partake in such-and-such activity," that is a clear infringement on the rights of a property owner.

However, they have good reason for doing it.

The black who wants to go to McDonadl's has no natural right to enter a building that he does not own. It is the owner's property, and he ought to be able to allow in who he pleases.

Not when the building is, otherwise, open to the public.

If they screen entrants at the door, then they would be considered a private club, and THEN they can do whatever they want.

However, if the typically tell someone NOT to come, rather than a private club telling someone that they ARE allowed to come, then they shouldn't be allowed to do that because of race.

I think it is dangerous to contend that the government should be in the habit of regulating morality. When the government regulates morality, we end up with issues like discrimination of gays, for a quick example.

I agree that the government has no business regulating MORALITY.

However, they DO have a vested interest in regulating actions that cause injury (such as, the injury of unemployment).

I assume that you're a Libertarian at the ballot, and the Libertarians are also the party of personal responsibility. They advocate only outlawing things that cause injury, but when an action does cause an unjust injury, they support making the criminal and/or tortfeasor pay full restitution and compensation for their actions.

Read the Libertarian Platform. They oppose discrimination, not just on the government, but they also oppose any actions that make it hard for hardworking individuals to get and keep jobs, as well as being held down by the man.

Anti-discrimination laws are not regulating morality; they are regulating actions that necessarily cause injury (such as unemployment), and, therefore, even though I sympathize with Libertarians, I cannot advocate the legalization of discrimination.

 

[Axis]

I'm from Florida. And I'm Hispanic, so I don't need a lesson on the suppression of minorities, thank you. And I am not debating what the law is, rather how it should be constructed. Furthermore, I cannot be labeled as anything "at the ballot," because I prefer not to vote in medium to large-sized races. I'm incredibly caught up and interested in the political landscape, but until I find candidates that are not corporate puppets, I will continue to vote only in very local elections, where candidates cannot be bought because nobody cares enough to buy them.

With that out of the way...

I agree that the government should be in position to regulate actions that cause injury, but to ascribe "unemployment" to a list of injuries is borderline asinine. If unemployment is an injury, then the government would have to regulate it in the same manner that it regulates other injuries. In the same way that it protects every individual from murder, abuse, et al. it would have to also protect every individual from unemployment. Nobody calls for a full governmental guarantee of employment, unless you're talking about communism, and even that would be an extreme brand of communism. The logical implications of labeling unemployment as an injury take us down a road of statism, quite frankly. If I am injured by being unemployed, then the State would have to force an employer to hire me, ergo undermining that employer's right to hire somebody as he chooses. That, or the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it undoubtedly gets drawn arbitrarily. Either unemployment is an injury, and the government must protect against it in all cases; or it is not an injury, the government does not guarantee it. There is no in-between founded logically.

 

[dstebbins]

I'm from Florida. And I'm Hispanic, so I don't need a lesson on the suppression of minorities, thank you.

Well, apparently, you do.

And I am not debating what the law is, rather how it should be constructed.

This thread was about whether or not it IS (objective) constitutional to extend protection to most disabled people without extending it to transsexuals.

Don't argue subjective political beliefs. That's not what this is about.

Furthermore, I cannot be labeled as anything "at the ballot," because I prefer not to vote in medium to large-sized races. I'm incredibly caught up and interested in the political landscape, but until I find candidates that are not corporate puppets, I will continue to vote only in very local elections, where candidates cannot be bought because nobody cares enough to buy them.

In that case, try this:

In Florida, the voters have the power of initiative and referendum.

So, pass a constitutional amendment - legislature be damned - that states that political campaigns are held to false advertising standards, as well as a new crime called "political perjury."

This would apply, not only to the state legislature and gubernatorial, but also to Congressmen, as well as Presidential candidates that want to be on the ballot in Florida, even if the campaign promise is made in a different state.

Therefore, if the politician breaks his campaign promise, he goes to jail for three years, and his party pays the court a fine of $100,000.

That way, they'll HAVE to keep their promises!

With that out of the way...

I agree that the government should be in position to regulate actions that cause injury, but to ascribe "unemployment" to a list of injuries is borderline asinine.

How so?

If unemployment is an injury, then the government would have to regulate it in the same manner that it regulates other injuries.

In a way, it does.

It regulates it in the same manner as it regulates other contracts.

And, employee or independent contractor, it doesn't matter, because the Civil Rights Act also prohibits racial discrimination in "business dealings" just as it prohibits racial discrimination in employment.

For example, if a black CEO wants to strike a deal with a white CEO, and the white CEO doesn't want to discuss the matter with "n****rs," then the black CEO has a cause of action, even though he was not the white CEO's employee.

In the same way that it protects every individual from murder, abuse, et al.

Learn the difference between crimes and torts.

it would have to also protect every individual from unemployment.

Ahem, it would HAVE to?

Nobody calls for a full governmental guarantee of employment,

NOBODY?

unless you're talking about communism, and even that would be an extreme brand of communism.

So, equal employment OPPORTUNITY is communism?

The logical implications of labeling unemployment as an injury take us down a road of statism, quite frankly.

No, it doesn't

The "injury" of lost wages is just like any other injury: You can only sue for it if it was caused by an actual tort!

If yous imply slip and fall in a pothole and sprain your ankle, there's no cause of action because there's no TORT! There was no duty of care, and, therefore, no cause of action.

If I am injured by being unemployed, then the State would have to force an employer to hire me,

Do the words "injunctive relief" mean anything to you?

ergo undermining that employer's right to hire somebody as he chooses.

He has the choice.

He can either provide you injunctive relief (giving you back your job), or, he can pay you front pay to keep you financially content until you can get another job.

That, or the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it undoubtedly gets drawn arbitrarily.

It already HAS been drawn.

Either unemployment is an injury, and the government must protect against it in all cases; or it is not an injury, the government does not guarantee it. There is no in-between founded logically.

The government PROTECTS your right to equal opportunity in employment and advancement regardless of your race, gender, national origin, religion, or disability.

They do not guarantee employment, altogether, and they never have. Instead, they guarantee equal opportunity, but you still have to meet them in the middle.

If you don't already know that, you're just ignorant.

 

[dstebbins]

Prove it, fool.

Just tell me which point I made that you want me to prove, and I will.

 

[Axis]

This thread was about whether or not it IS (objective) constitutional to extend protection to most disabled people without extending it to transsexuals.

Don't argue subjective political beliefs. That's not what this is about.

I understand what your original intention was, however it was generating absolutely no substantive discussion. In order to provoke some discussion, I was looking to evolve the topic based on what I have seen has generated discussion on IWF in the past. I am not here to discuss what the law is with you. If that is the only thing that you want to discuss, then I'm sorry. Do not continue reading this post, simply say that you're not interested, and we can move on and avoid wasting anybody's time. I will only be providing substantive responses in the context of how logical conclusions must be drawn, not what the law currently is. Again, if that's not what you want, don't bother responding to the rest of my post.

In that case, try this:

In Florida, the voters have the power of initiative and referendum.

So, pass a constitutional amendment - legislature be damned - that states that political campaigns are held to false advertising standards, as well as a new crime called "political perjury."

This would apply, not only to the state legislature and gubernatorial, but also to Congressmen, as well as Presidential candidates that want to be on the ballot in Florida, even if the campaign promise is made in a different state.

Therefore, if the politician breaks his campaign promise, he goes to jail for three years, and his party pays the court a fine of $100,000.

That way, they'll HAVE to keep their promises!

Absolutely not. If the masses wish to vote for candidates that are corporately-sponsored, then that is their prerogative. I will make my choice, and they can make theirs. If the country is too stupid to vote for legitimate thinkers as lawmakers, then the country is too stupid to deserve legitimate thinkers as lawmakers.

In a way, it does.

It regulates it in the same manner as it regulates other contracts.

And, employee or independent contractor, it doesn't matter, because the Civil Rights Act also prohibits racial discrimination in "business dealings" just as it prohibits racial discrimination in employment.

For example, if a black CEO wants to strike a deal with a white CEO, and the white CEO doesn't want to discuss the matter with "n****rs," then the black CEO has a cause of action, even though he was not the white CEO's employee.

This applies to what I originally posted. Instead of answering what the law is, I would like you to answer this question: why? Why should a white CEO have to deal with a black CEO? Why should a white CEO have to deal with a Hispanic CEO? If he does not want to, why should the State force him? Again, I'm not asking for the relevant law; that answer is obvious. I'm asking why, logically, should a CEO have to deal with somebody that he does not want to deal with?

NOBODY?

The answer to this rhetoric can be found in the part of my post that you failed to quote in this section. Obviously some advocate, but as I pointed out that would be an extreme case of Statism for one to advocate that the government ensure that every citizen has a job. If you want to debate that, then we can, but that is somewhat of a different ball game.

So, equal employment OPPORTUNITY is communism?

Okay, that is not even close to what I said. My point was obviously about insurance of employment, nothing about the opportunity. You even quoted in prior. I made it quite clear that I was talking about a government-assurance that every citizen would be employed. Equal opportunity is one where the government does not disallow anybody from having a job. If the government said that black people could not work at Microsoft, then that is state-sponsored segregation, which we both agree is inappropriate. I do not believe that the government should disallow anybody to have a job (or eat at a diner, or shop at a store); rather, it should be the individual's decision to do what he chooses with his property when faced with the task of hiring or allowing potential consumers in for business.

No, it doesn't

The "injury" of lost wages is just like any other injury: You can only sue for it if it was caused by an actual tort!

If yous imply slip and fall in a pothole and sprain your ankle, there's no cause of action because there's no TORT! There was no duty of care, and, therefore, no cause of action.

Do the words "injunctive relief" mean anything to you?

He has the choice.

He can either provide you injunctive relief (giving you back your job), or, he can pay you front pay to keep you financially content until you can get another job.

The situation you've put forth is not a real choice; it is one swayed by government coercion. When an individual's choice is hampered by potential State action, then his natural rights have been infringed about by the State. A free choice is as such: do I hire him and reap the potential benefits/costs, or do I not hire him and reap the potential benefits/costs. To that, there is an obvious addition that if a benefit or cost is brought about by the State, then we have seen a loss of individual freedom. Again, this is typed in the context of what should be, not what is.

It already HAS been drawn.

Again, see the first part of my post.

The government PROTECTS your right to equal opportunity in employment and advancement regardless of your race, gender, national origin, religion, or disability.

They do not guarantee employment, altogether, and they never have. Instead, they guarantee equal opportunity, but you still have to meet them in the middle.

Your conclusion seems to have summed up the fact that you have backed off from your previous assertion that unemployment is an injury. Is it that unemployment is an injury (as you previously stated), or that the inability to be treated equally in context of being hired is an injury?

 

[dstebbins]

Absolutely not. If the masses wish to vote for candidates that are corporately-sponsored, then that is their prerogative.

What makes you think the masses want to do that?

I don't WANT to live off cheap, sweatshop imports, but it's all I can afford, right now!

They vote that way because they HAVE to. Nobody else manages to make it that far.

I will make my choice, and they can make theirs.

Dude, an initiative won't pass unless a majority vote in favor of it! you've got nothing to loose!

If the country is too stupid to vote for legitimate thinkers as lawmakers,

No legitimate thinkers are willing to BE lawmakers!

then the country is too stupid to deserve legitimate thinkers as lawmakers.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the parties only NOMINATE these kinds of people, so the voters don't have a choice!

This applies to what I originally posted. Instead of answering what the law is, I would like you to answer this question: why? Why should a white CEO have to deal with a black CEO? Why should a white CEO have to deal with a Hispanic CEO? If he does not want to, why should the State force him? Again, I'm not asking for the relevant law; that answer is obvious. I'm asking why, logically, should a CEO have to deal with somebody that he does not want to deal with?

Because people get injured when you don't.

Lost wages or lost profits, it doesn't matter. People still get injured, and, as a direct result, it should be illegal unless you have a good reason for it.

Okay, that is not even close to what I said.

Actually, it was.

It may not have been what you MEANT, but it IS what you SAID.

My point was obviously about insurance of employment, nothing about the opportunity. You even quoted in prior. I made it quite clear that I was talking about a government-assurance that every citizen would be employed.

You're right, I disagree that the government should do that.

But, they AREN'T doing that! They are protecting people's rights to equal employment opportunity!

They are NOT guaranteeing jobs to people. That's asinine.

Equal opportunity is one where the government does not disallow anybody from having a job.

Huh?

If the government said that black people could not work at Microsoft, then that is state-sponsored segregation, which we both agree is inappropriate. I do not believe that the government should disallow anybody to have a job (or eat at a diner, or shop at a store); rather, it should be the individual's decision to do what he chooses with his property when faced with the task of hiring or allowing potential consumers in for business.

Not when others are unfairly injured.

The situation you've put forth is not a real choice; it is one swayed by government coercion.

If that's the case, then we've been under government coercion since 1964, and no one seems to have cared that much.

When an individual's choice is hampered by potential State action, then his natural rights have been infringed about by the State.

No right is absolute. They can be taken away if they are abused.

And, prior to 1964, racial and sexual discrimination were WIDELY abused.

A free choice is as such: do I hire him and reap the potential benefits/costs, or do I not hire him and reap the potential benefits/costs. To that, there is an obvious addition that if a benefit or cost is brought about by the State, then we have seen a loss of individual freedom. Again, this is typed in the context of what should be, not what is.

Dude, what you're suggesting is not freedom. It's anarchism.

Your conclusion seems to have summed up the fact that you have backed off from your previous assertion that unemployment is an injury.[

No, I have not done that.

Is it that unemployment is an injury (as you previously stated), or that the inability to be treated equally in context of being hired is an injury?

Both.

You can be discriminated, but if the employer can show how you wouldn't have gotten the job, anyway, then you STILL have no cause of action, because it's a matter of "no harm no foul."

"So what if I discriminated him? It says here, on his application, that he has a felony theft charge on his criminal record! I don't trust those people!"

JUDGE: Well, Plaintiff, normally, you would have had a winning case, but this is a matter of no harm no foul.

So, the unequal treatment is the tort. Unemployment is the injury that is caused by the tort.

Kapeesh?

 

[Italian Outsider]

I'm from Florida. And I'm Hispanic,

that's a shock

 

[Axis]

What makes you think the masses want to do that?

I don't WANT to live off cheap, sweatshop imports, but it's all I can afford, right now!

They vote that way because they HAVE to. Nobody else manages to make it that far.

Dude, an initiative won't pass unless a majority vote in favor of it! you've got nothing to loose!

Or, maybe, just maybe, the parties only NOMINATE these kinds of people, so the voters don't have a choice!

They don't have to vote that way. I don't vote that way. They choose to vote that way. If 49% of voters want to vote for corporately-sponsored candidates, then I do not see a legitimate reason why the 51% should stop that.

As for your second point, you have depersonalized parties too much. Parties are made of citizens. Even in situations where there is not an open primary, more civic engagement can offset special interest infusion into primary politics. Besides, if a generation of voters could muster enough support to pass a referendum that bans corporate favors, then surely those same voters could vote for a clean candidate(s).

Dude, what you're suggesting is not freedom. It's anarchism.

That's a very narrow view. I do not want the government to act in this specific sort of instance. That does not therefore mean that they should not act in any instance. I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion.

No right is absolute. They can be taken away if they are abused.

Some rights should only be suppressed in very extreme cases. Not hiring me because I'm Hispanic is not extreme.

I'm confused where you stand on unemployment being an injury coupled with your view that unemployment (I'm not saying, nor did I say before, opportunity to employment) is an injury. Either explain how my logic is wrong here, or which proposition you disagree with:

P1. Unemployment is an injury
P2. The government should protect against injuries
Concl: The government should protect against unemployment.

If this logic is correct, which I believe it to be, then surely you advocate complete government assurance of employment?