(NOTE: Sorry if I my acronym isn't up to date here. The nomenclature for classifications of sexual orientation, gender identity, etc seem to change alot)
Now that the gay marriage issue is settled, do we need to move on and address the fact that the LGBT community is not a protected class identified in the Civil RIghts Act or the Fair Housing Act? The LGBT community is clearly a minority vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace, businesses that provide public accommodations, and the housing and rental market (to what extent they are discriminated against, I don't pretend to know). If we, as a nation, value protecting minority groups through federal legislation, it seems only just that the LGBT community should enjoy the same legal protections as other minorities.
WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials announced Wednesday that the DOD will provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples for the first time, giving gay spouses access to health care, housing allowances and family separation pay.
The move comes little more than a month after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which Defense Department leaders have said prevented them from offering federal marriage benefits to gay troops. Numerous government agencies have taken steps to offer health care and other benefits to same-sex married couples in the wake of the ruling.
In a statement, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the move reflects the Defense Department’s commitment to “ensuring that all men and women who serve in the U.S. military and their families are treated fairly and equally.”
The change, set to go into effect no later than Sept. 3, will mean tens of thousands of dollars in direct payments and covered health care costs for legally married same-sex military couples.
Housing allowances alone can reach up to $30,000 in annual payouts for married troops with dependent children.
Defense Department officials will also allow same-sex troops to take nonchargeable leave “for the purpose of travelling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage may occur.”
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow gay marriages. In a memo to defense staff, Hagel called the inconsistent state rules a potential hardship for same-sex couples, and said the extra leave time would “help level the playing field.”
Troops stationed outside the United States will be allowed up to 10 days of uncharged leave for a same-sex wedding, per approval from their command. Troops inside the United States but stationed more than 100 miles from a state that allows gay marriage will have seven days. Servicemembers will be able to use the marriage leave time only once in their career.
Gay troops who are already legally married could see retroactive benefits back to June 26, the date of the Supreme Court decision. Same-sex married couples who apply for benefits in the future will follow the same procedures and documentation as opposite-sex couples.
Since the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was repealed in 2011, gay rights advocates have pushed for extension of the married couple benefits to same-sex troops, arguing that the policy still amounted to discrimination in the ranks.
Defense Department leaders did extend access to family support programs and other resources to the couples, but said the Defense of Marriage Act — which forbade the federal government from officially recognizing same-sex marriages — preventing them from going further.
Mark Mazzone, spokesman for the military LGBT advocacy group SPART*A, said the changes will be a financial boost to many same-sex couples thus far deprived of equal benefits, and the leave time for travel to states that allow same-sex marriage show the military is committed to reaching out to gay troops.
“While some states are still saying same-sex marriage is a no-go, it’s clear with this that the military is accepting it,” he said.
In a statement, officials at the American Military Partner Association called the pending Pentagon announcement “a huge step forward for our families who for far too long have been excluded and cut off from support.”
Pentagon officials acknowledged that the new policy will require a host of policy regulation updates and some technical upgrades to existing systems. For example, the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System does not currently recognize same-sex partners for ID cards, and will have to be upgraded to implement the new policy.
Still, Pentagon officials are confident the changes can be handled in coming weeks.
The changes apply only to “legally married same-sex couples” and not gay troops who have state-backed civil unions.
jasper76 wrote: The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.
Yes and No. The US military was one of the first government bodies to enforce desegregation on paper, but segregation was unofficially continued until after the Korean War, and profound racism was still prevalent into the Vietnam War. Also note that the US Military was one of the only government bodies to actually enforce straight out discrimination against LGBT individuals up until DADT was suspended in 2011 (as opposed to more subtle forms of discrimination, like just not recognizing a gay marriage as a valid legal marriage).
Really, what the Military has been traditionally is ahead of the bell curve on written policy, but traditionally its policy in practice has typically been behind the rest of the American society. That said, the above mentioned proposal seems quite promising for LGBT folk.
jasper76 wrote: The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.
Yes and No. The US military was one of the first government bodies to enforce desegregation on paper, but segregation was unofficially continued until after the Korean War, and profound racism was still prevalent into the Vietnam War. Also note that the US Military was one of the only government bodies to actually enforce straight out discrimination against LGBT individuals up until DADT was suspended in 2011 (as opposed to more subtle forms of discrimination, like just not recognizing a gay marriage as a valid legal marriage).
Really, what the Military has been traditionally is ahead of the bell curve on written policy, but traditionally its policy in practice has typically been behind the rest of the American society. That said, the above mentioned proposal seems quite promising for LGBT folk.
I suppose your right. Obama extended healthcare to same-sex partners for federal employees a good while ago, IIRC.
I think things will work out better for LGBT folk on this front (not trying to be a downer ). The Civil Rights movement was far more vehement and vicious in comparison
No. Get rid of the act entirely.
I give you points for just coming out and saying it, even though it's a bad idea
LordofHats wrote: I think things will work out better for LGBT folk on this front (not trying to be a downer ). The Civil Rights movement was far more vehement and vicious in comparison
No. Get rid of the act entirely.
I give you points for just coming out and saying it, even though it's a bad idea
"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on service by gays and lesbians in the military instituted by the Clinton Administration on February 28, 1994, when Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 issued on December 21, 1993, took effect,[1] lasting until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160 (10 U.S.C. § 654), which was signed November 30, 1993.[2] The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".[3]
Just throwing that in for clarification
I joined in 89 and remember being asked verbally and even signing documentation stating I was not a Homosexual. For the life of me I cannot remember being asked directly if I was a Bisexual.
Only time a Bisexual incident came up was a NCO came into 1st SGT office and stated he was Bisexual before we deployed to Iraq. Being the Individual stated in front of Senior NCO's and within earshot of the Commander we had to follow through on the paper work. Called JAG on how to proceed with the case who in turned told us to wait to only come back to tell us he still "Good to Go" being he like females.
Back to DADT all questions that was either on documents or verbal questions were removed concerning the "Subject"
Young black men are as much as 21xs more likely to be killed by police, there's been who knows how many threads discussing riots in multiple states, gay couples are denied basic services and civil recognitions because they have a matching set, a Black Church got shot up by a Confederate flag waving yahoo, women still get threatened with rape as a matter of course all over the internet, zealots all over the country still think white Christian male is the only demographic that matters at all, I don't know how many people just insult Muslims cuz why not they're all terrorists anyway, + a dozen more hyperboles I could throw out to poke fun at the silliness of repealing the Civil Rights Act.
We're sort of in an awkward phase now where someone can get a same-sex marriage one day, and hypothetically in some locations get fired from their job, or kicked out of their apartment the next day, etc. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.
Clinton could press the issue as a campaign platform issue. It would be political gold. If most of the country supports gay marriage, the same majority would presumably support the extension of anti-discrimination protection, so she'd be able to capitalize on the crossover that exists from the gay marriage issue.
I'm sure it will happen eventually, but no time soon with the current congress.
Should we? I mean, I guess. Those protections do end up being a hassle for people that want to comply, and a pretty ineffective barrier for people that still want to discriminate.
generalgrog wrote: May as well let those 5 lawyers in DC make all the laws. Just ask them to decide this issue for you.
And here you are, right on schedule, with the conservative cliche. Let's be honest here, if one of those five lawyers had ruled the other way you'd be here celebrating the defense of "traditional" marriage and wouldn't have any complaints about "5 lawyers in DC making all the laws".
cincydooley wrote: Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.
What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?
Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life. A number of people choose partners outside their orientation for one reason or another or change their orientation.
However what you are proposing means that protection is given based on the gender of ones partner. So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection, later moves in with a man and gets protection. That sounds like discrimination to me. Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some statuses are permanent, others potentially transientory choices. Sexuality is one of those.
Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also. Part of the reason why classification is left to self identification. You also can't tell someone that because they switched partner genders this makes them classified as bisexual for life, they may have switched states between homosexual to heterosexual or vice versa. Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.
All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.
Orlanth wrote: So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection
And this is where you're wrong. The man in that situation would get protection, they're just incredibly unlikely to need it since anti-straight bigotry is virtually nonexistent outside of conservative straw man arguments.
Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some choices are permanent, others transientory. Sexuality is one of those.
So, since you're opposed to offering protection for things that aren't permanent, I'm going to assume that you're opposed to having religion be a protected class?
All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.
You'd have to convince me that heterosexuals are frequently discrminated against on the basis of their sexuality for me to buy this.
Plus, the way the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act read does not specify sub-categories....e.g. it doesn't say black people can't be discrminated against, it says people can't be discriminated on the basis of "race". The law could easily be written to be neutral as to where you fall in the sexual orientation spectrum.
It seems to me that building a specific list of things that you can discriminate on is a really weird way to go about designing the law.
Really, any discrimination that doesn't impact on one's ability to work or one's suitability as a tenant is bad and shouldn't be legal. It's a silly hypothetical, but it seems strange to me that I could fire someone for being black and face serious legal consequences, but I can fire bald people all day long and the law doesn't care.
But then, that in turn comes back to the issues with right to work laws - if the employer doesn't have to establish what performance reason he had to fire you, then it's extremely difficult to prove that he had underlying prejudicial reasons. So really the ideal framework is one where the employer has to establish performance, disciplinary or economic reasons for firing someone, and in the absence of those any kind of unfair discrimination will become clear, whether that discrimination is race, sexual preference, being ugly or blue eyed or whatever else,
The correct acronym now is LGBT+ because even the community realized it changes way to much. or LGBTQ because Queer encompasses all different things doing with gender.
Tell that to the 4 judges who dissented pretty hard.I'm sure they and Chief Justice John Roberts would disagree with your oversimplification of this issue.
generalgrog wrote: Tell that to the 4 judges who dissented pretty hard.I'm sure they and Chief Justice John Roberts would disagree with your oversimplification of this issue.
GG
Tell what to the four judges? Who are you responding to?
Why don't people use quotes when they're responding to one person?
generalgrog wrote: Tell that to the 4 judges who dissented pretty hard.I'm sure they and Chief Justice John Roberts would disagree with your oversimplification of this issue.
GG
Tell what to the four judges? Who are you responding to?
Why don't people use quotes when they're responding to one person?
He's responding to sirlynchmob's recent post above.
If you read the dissent over that SSM ruling, those justices makes a pretty strong case that the majority was "legislating from the bench".
Which is absolutely rich coming from CJ Roberts' majority in favor of the Government on that last ACA ruling.
whembly wrote: He's responding to sirlynchmob's recent post above.
There was a post in-between. Which is why the quote function exists.
If you read the dissent over that SSM ruling, those justices makes a pretty strong case that the majority was "legislating from the bench".
Which is absolutely rich coming from CJ Roberts' majority in favor of the Government on that last ACA ruling.
Only if you believe that a typo over-rides the clear intent of the law. Which is a concept that isn't so much on shaky legal ground, as no legal ground at all.
Orlanth wrote: So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection
And this is where you're wrong. The man in that situation would get protection, they're just incredibly unlikely to need it since anti-straight bigotry is virtually nonexistent outside of conservative straw man arguments.
With regards to housing issues it could result in social housing queue jumping. 'You aren't doing enough to build ethnic housing' could be replaced with 'you aren't doing enough to build housing for the LGBT community'.
Also what protection would the heterosexual couple get as an unprotected class that would require protection for others?
Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some choices are permanent, others transientory. Sexuality is one of those.
So, since you're opposed to offering protection for things that aren't permanent, I'm going to assume that you're opposed to having religion be a protected class?
Religion has nothing to do with the thread.
However we are seeing with increasing frequency that religion is not a protected class, or is having any protections widely ignored, or verbally challenged with a gusto which if measured against any other group would border into the category of hatespeech.
You provide good example of this frequently..
Sexuality is one of those. Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also.
Yes, sexuality is fluid, and can change, however that does not mean it is a choice. People are not deciding they are gay because of some protection they want. They fall in love with different people.
Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.
No it's not. People are not protected because of the sexuality (or because of their gender, race or religion) but because of the actions of the other party. It is quite possible for a straight person to claim homophobic discrimination if the other party discriminated because the believe they are gay.
With regards to housing issues it could result in social housing queue jumping. 'You aren't doing enough to build ethnic housing' could be replaced with 'you aren't doing enough to build housing for the LGBT community'.
Also what protection would the heterosexual couple get as an unprotected class that would require protection for others?
Is this about the idea that some people have in the UK that some people get priority on social housing lists because of race? Which is simply not true, and would be illegal in the UK. The UK has no concept of protected classes, only protected characteristics. You cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability in the UK except in very specific, limited, circumstances.
jasper76 wrote: The US Military always seems to be a step ahead on this kind of stuff.
Yes and No. The US military was one of the first government bodies to enforce desegregation on paper, but segregation was unofficially continued until after the Korean War, and profound racism was still prevalent into the Vietnam War. Also note that the US Military was one of the only government bodies to actually enforce straight out discrimination against LGBT individuals up until DADT was suspended in 2011 (as opposed to more subtle forms of discrimination, like just not recognizing a gay marriage as a valid legal marriage).
Really, what the Military has been traditionally is ahead of the bell curve on written policy, but traditionally its policy in practice has typically been behind the rest of the American society. That said, the above mentioned proposal seems quite promising for LGBT folk.
I think it is a fair statement that the US Military is almost always ahead of the curve in civil rights. Yes desegregation took place first in the Military and yes it definitely hit a lot of bumps along the way, but at this point there is no such thing as a black or white or mexican marine their are only Amphibious Green Blurs. Any racism that still exists (Actual racism not joking) is so harshly looked down upon and punished that it would end the career of any idiots who tried. As far as LGBT, i served with a handful of lesbians and a couple of bisexuals and 1-2 gay guys, nobody cared as far as I can recall. So long as you did your job and didnt fall asleep on post you were G2G.
No.
Enough with the protected groups. People have a right to be as les.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: We're sort of in an awkward phase now where someone can get a same-sex marriage one day, and hypothetically in some locations get fired from their job, or kicked out of their apartment the next day, etc. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.
Clinton could press the issue as a campaign platform issue. It would be political gold. If most of the country supports gay marriage, the same majority would presumably support the extension of anti-discrimination protection, so she'd be able to capitalize on the crossover that exists from the gay marriage issue.
-Dude if someone doesn't want to bake your wedding cake you spread on FB and just go to a different place.
-Most states are right to work states. People can get fired for breathing. You shouldn't be a special snowflake because of who you .
jasper76 wrote: We're sort of in an awkward phase now where someone can get a same-sex marriage one day, and hypothetically in some locations get fired from their job, or kicked out of their apartment the next day, etc. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.
Clinton could press the issue as a campaign platform issue. It would be political gold. If most of the country supports gay marriage, the same majority would presumably support the extension of anti-discrimination protection, so she'd be able to capitalize on the crossover that exists from the gay marriage issue.
-Dude if someone doesn't want to bake your wedding cake you spread on FB and just go to a different place.
-Most states are right to work states. People can get fired for breathing. You shouldn't be a special snowflake because of who you .
For your first point, can we please dispense with the wedding cake example, maybe leave that in the Gay Marriage thread. That wedding cake example is horrible, because, as you say, you could just go to the bakery on the other street, and if you can't find a bakery to bake you a cake, it will have been a demeaning experience, but no one's going to become homeless or starve over it. I'd like to talk instead about discrimination in areas that are vital to life and livelihood (e.g. employment, housing, and healthcare -- healthcare maybe being a moot point at the moment) as opposed to access to luxuries.
For your second point, I know that "right to work" legislation exists in many states. What I am talking about is the ability to fire someone (or refuse someone housing or healthcare) on the basis of their sexuality. (I also know that proving that a person discriminated against another person on the basis of being part of a protected class would be difficult to prove in court because its easy to concoct a legit reason to fire someone, like "we don't have the money" or "this is the third time you've been 1 minute late to work"...to me that's sort of beside the point).
Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they . If you want to be treated the same, you should be subject to being treated the same.
Note under the enlightened frazzled administration, there's nothing keeping people from being fired for being breeders either.
Frazzled wrote: Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .
So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.
People can easily be mistaken for something else as pointed out above. For some people it's easier to assume you're bent if you don't respond to their advances than think about some other reason you might not be interested in them. Girl doesn't like your dirty jokes? Lesbian. I refuse to go home with a very very drunk woman? Gay. And ofc, I've got one old male friend (straight and married) who seems very attractive to gay men for some reason.
This won't change much anyway. You've already had to come up with reasons for other groups. If you hate so much that you can't keep your mouth shut about it when dealing with the very people you hate I'd say you had it coming.
One of the more discriminated against groups over here is gypsies (or romani if you prefer), for example. Thought of as thieves, swindlers and hot tempered knifemen they are at times turned away from businesses and bars. But it's usually good if you can make a case that it wasn't because of who they are but something else.
Frazzled wrote: Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .
So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.
You're right. And?
I just realized, on the off chance there isn't an app already, an app is needed for gay friendly businesses. I'd bet good money there's one already. You could list pretty much all of Austin. Its my understanding wedding related business is booming. Did you see The "First Annual Big Gay Wedding" at the Texas capital on July 4? Hundreds of people. Now thats a way to celebrate Independence Day.
Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life.
Thats simply not true.
Blanket statement. There is enough evidence, as in masses of case histories where people have had a lesbian partners than gone straight, or the other way around. there is even a phrase hasbian or wasbian to accommodate the phenomena. Similar histories apply to males also.
Yes, sexuality is fluid, and can change, however that does not mean it is a choice. People are not deciding they are gay because of some protection they want. They fall in love with different people.
Love is a choice, preference has a lot to do with it. Hence the term preference which implies choice from the beginning. If love had no choices rape would not be a crime, in some societies it effectively isn't, those societies follow your mantra closer than ours do.
The very nature that sexuality is fluid indicates choice, or at least I hope you realise this, were you to espouse that sexuality was malleable but choice didn't come into it then you are condemning humanity as a very savage race indeed.
Yes some people feel they have no choice over their sexuality, society has long found prisons and asylums fit places for them.
Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.
No it's not. People are not protected because of the sexuality (or because of their gender, race or religion) but because of the actions of the other party. It is quite possible for a straight person to claim homophobic discrimination if the other party discriminated because the believe they are gay.
You misunderstand, choosing a partner of the same gender enables protection. Persecution can come for any angle, but the protection is uneven.
Say someone didn't like you are discriminated against you, the discrimination might have nothing to do with your sexuality, but if you have a girlfriend you have no protection, if you have a boyfriend you can scream that you are being gaybashed and have as much protection as your lawyers can prize out.
Society has enough problems having to walk on egg shells around protected persons, and the discrimination drum is not always what it is, to add another set of arbitrary criteria to this.
The law has to provide cover for all. Gender and racial discrimination does cover this to some degree, while harder to claim in anti-male sexism and anti-white racism is technically covered. LGBT protection however would need to be extended to cover heterosexuals to achieve fairness and equity in legal standing, and thast is not what the threat purports to.
Is this about the idea that some people have in the UK that some people get priority on social housing lists because of race? Which is simply not true, and would be illegal in the UK.
For a start it is very true, less so of late, but certainly true.
Some whole housing estates were 'targeted' for certain minority groups for social housing, and not in proportion to their numbers.
I know this for a flat fact because I live in one, or more accurately what was intended to become one, but the project was exposed to the press and equal opportunities had to be implemented.
Also, and from experience as a homeless worker, being white male puts you at the bottom of the queue for housing.
That is the hard reality. Reasons for this vary, In Bradford it was because a large number of persons from an ethnic minority group had positions of power in the local council and fast tracked procedures for their own kind. It was bad enough even the BBC Radio 2 made comment on it, in 2008, which was surprising as this was under New Labour time and such events were whitewashed.
You can go to London and see whole purpose built housing estates with arches with inscriptions in Urdu, because the local council built the entire estate especially for the Indian community. Some of this is well meaning, though that is being generous as those in the local housing sector ought to know that the pressure for social housing is a burden on everyone and building housing targeted at minority groups inherently discriminates against the rest.
In many cases ethnically engineering social housing is a means of changing local political demographics. With individuals vary voting block statistics for ethnicities have reliable results, so if an estate is made for minority housing in a contested ward it can shift the voter demographics of the ward to a more desired position. This is strongly suggested to be the motive for making the whole estate I live in initially Asian only.
anyway that is what happens in the UK, but I didn't actually mean all that as I don't know if that occurs in the US.
What I do know occurs in both the US and UK is lobbying for statistical allocation of social housing. Which for brevity is along the lines of the are x% of our community group in this state, so we must have at least x% of social housing allocated for our people. There are three troubles with this, first no lobby group complains if their community is overrepresented, second advocacy is available on a partisan basis and third there is a fear on housing providers to go the extra mile to prove they are inclusive. With a limited housing stock and multiple pressure groups something has to give, and that is from the community group with the least empowerment. That ultimately means white males, in a possible near future white heterosexual males.
Contrary to believe being a white male is not a success pass of itself, and many white males, especially those in need of social housing are not empowered and due to their white maleness have no advocacy group to ensure equality for them.
The UK has no concept of protected classes, only protected characteristics. You cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability in the UK except in very specific, limited, circumstances.
This is true and it is a better system, as sexuality is protected this includes heterosexuals by default. Which is a reason why social housing target allocation for homosexuals is not an issue, and any gay lobby, and there are a few would not be able to effectively get teeth into the idea of priority allocation, and to give credit to them have not to my knowledge even tried.
However specific LGBT protection opens up that can of worms.
Implying that the other side of an argument is championing rape, paedophilia and the like is definitely not okay, no matter how you go about implying that. It is rude, and further action belittling one side of the argument like this may require moderation action.
This thread has the potential to provide interesting discussion,let's do our best.
Frazzled wrote: Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .
So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.
You're right. And?
My only point was that I'm not proposing that the CRA and FHA be amended to provide protections to people based on who they , but rather based on sexual orientation.
Frazzled wrote: Again, people can be fired for anything in right to work states. They should not be protected, with affirmative action set asides on the basis of who they .
So I shouldn't have to point out that sexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with who you . There are plenty of abstinent homosexuals, either by choice or by inability to find a partner. I'm hoping you're using as a simile or something. There are also plenty of men and women who are not homosexual, but, because of some characteristic, are perceived to be homosexuals by others.
You're right. And?
My only point was that I'm not proposing that the CRA and FHA be amended to provide protections to people based on who they , but rather based on sexual orientation.
How on earth would you go about identifying that? Would Caitlyn Jenner have been protected for his entire life, or just once the individual began transitioning? Once he has, would his ex-wife be considered a lesbian since she had been married to a woman?
Identifying race is hard enough-but at least you can pull out an ancestry chart and confirm that yes, they contain enough blood of the protected class to be protected. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against- but is an unenforcable law the best way to provide protection?
How on earth would you go about identifying that? Would Caitlyn Jenner have been protected for his entire life, or just once the individual began transitioning? Once he has, would his ex-wife be considered a lesbian since she had been married to a woman?
Presumably by the same means members of other protected groups do: by providing sufficient evidence that the individual was discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.
Also, individual races are not protected by the CRA or the FHA. They both just state that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.
Polonius wrote: Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?
Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.
I think there has been some arguments in local EEOC offices putting forth that argument actually.
I think the answer from a generation ago would have been that mental illness is not protected. The answer five years ago would have been "that's just icky and weird."
I think medicine and science are pointin in the direction that transsexuality is a gender/sex mismatch, and thus just as protected. It'd probably take some litigation, but I imagine the courts will rule that way. Narrowly, so as to avoid every crazy scenario of a person claiming differen gender status, but if the law prohibits me from making hiring or rental decisions based on if the applicant is a man or woman, should it matter if they were always a man or woman?
Ghazkuul wrote: how about we just make a blanket law that says you cant discriminate...Or don't we already have that.
Well, certain types of discrimation are reasonable, for example discrimination on the basis of work experience or job qualifications , ability to pay for services, etc.
I think the issue now is that by the time you've explained what LGBTUOIROPPYOUKNOWYOUNDMEMOUSE is everyeon has either fallen asleep, or lapsed into a coma.
I know when the daughter does it, I've literally forgotten what we were talking about before she finishes.
Ghazkuul wrote: how about we just make a blanket law that says you cant discriminate...Or don't we already have that.
You can discriminate, you just can't discriminate for specific reasons. As you'd imagine, anti-discrimination laws are more generally used a tool by those legitimately denied/fired/etc, than actually used by the victims of discrimination. Very people are openly discriminatory any more, so proving the cases are difficult. Of course, defending the cases are also difficult.
The Civil Rights Act is outdated anyway and likely, you'd better be off with a blanket no discrimination ruling. Until this point, however...absolutely not.
The CRA was introduced having major oppression instruments in mind, e.g. apartheid. There simply isn't anything close to that in regards to Homo- / Bisexuals. There most certainly is discrimination towards them, but a lot of it works on a level the state cannot influence anyway, e.g. employment (unless you do it wrong). Just add the fact that it's impossible to even get a ruling given there was such an inclusion. How do you objectively determine whether someone is gay or not? Anyone could make that claim. Ask people to make out in front of a crowed? Hell, if my current job was up for debate, I'd totally make out with another man if that gave me the job.
There's no basis for such an inclusion and you couldn't even objectively make a decision (for the most part) on whether someone would be in benefit of those laws or not.
Denied.
Polonius wrote: Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?
They are. Everyone claiming to be "transsexual" has a sex, whether they want or not. They are thus protected by the CRA just as well as anyone else.
cincydooley wrote: Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.
What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?
Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life. A number of people choose partners outside their orientation for one reason or another or change their orientation.
However what you are proposing means that protection is given based on the gender of ones partner. So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection, later moves in with a man and gets protection. That sounds like discrimination to me. Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some statuses are permanent, others potentially transientory choices. Sexuality is one of those.
Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also. Part of the reason why classification is left to self identification. You also can't tell someone that because they switched partner genders this makes them classified as bisexual for life, they may have switched states between homosexual to heterosexual or vice versa. Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.
All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.
And here we have a typical confusion between behavior, which is a choice, and between the ATTRACTION, which is not a choice.
Someone who is more toward the Homosexual side of the spectrum might "choose" to marry a woman, but this is not going to affect at all the biological drive they are going to have to be aroused sexually by males.
It is times like these that I love having studied both biology and cognitive science.
Polonius wrote: Serious question: why aren't transexuals protected by any civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex?
Transsexuality is not a sexual orientation, it's about gender identity.
I think there has been some arguments in local EEOC offices putting forth that argument actually.
I think the answer from a generation ago would have been that mental illness is not protected. The answer five years ago would have been "that's just icky and weird."
I think medicine and science are pointin in the direction that transsexuality is a gender/sex mismatch, and thus just as protected. It'd probably take some litigation, but I imagine the courts will rule that way. Narrowly, so as to avoid every crazy scenario of a person claiming differen gender status, but if the law prohibits me from making hiring or rental decisions based on if the applicant is a man or woman, should it matter if they were always a man or woman?
Specifically, Gender dysphoria is a combination of epigenetic keys and factors (as in the biological definition of "Factor:" being a protein or mediating hormone that facilitates certain cellular behaviors) that create a brain that is a different sex/gender than the body.
So, a Male-female gender dysphoric would be a person with a male body, but a female brain. And a Female-male gender dysphoric would be a female body, with the brain of a male (technically the gender abnormality extends beyond just their brain - and there are other complicating factors to the mix, but that is essentially the basics).
To complicate matters even further, we have Homosexual Gender dysphorics, where you have a male-female who is attracted to women, and a female-male who is attracted to men.
This can create the very confusing situation where they appear to be perfectly "normal" because they are having what appears to be a normal relationship.
But really what they wish to have is a female-female, or male-male relationship, rather than the male-female, or female-male relationships they have prior to transition.
motyak wrote: Implying that the other side of an argument is championing rape, paedophilia and the like is definitely not okay, no matter how you go about implying that. It is rude, and further action belittling one side of the argument like this may require moderation action.
This thread has the potential to provide interesting discussion,let's do our best.
cincydooley wrote: Well if peregrine says /thread we may as well lock this one up.
What else is there to say? Is anyone actually going to defend excluding those people as a protected class?
Homosexual partnering is often a lifestyle choice in real life. A number of people choose partners outside their orientation for one reason or another or change their orientation.
However what you are proposing means that protection is given based on the gender of ones partner. So if a man moves in with a woman, no protection, later moves in with a man and gets protection. That sounds like discrimination to me. Someone who is ethnic is ethnic for life, some statuses are permanent, others potentially transientory choices. Sexuality is one of those.
Its all too easy to label people as gay, bi or straight but a lot don't make up their minds, or change their minds over time, to turn civic protection off and on dependent on current choice is amoral, to list all people with a tendency to switch as 'bi' is also unfair as the preferences are variable also. Part of the reason why classification is left to self identification. You also can't tell someone that because they switched partner genders this makes them classified as bisexual for life, they may have switched states between homosexual to heterosexual or vice versa. Having selective protection in these issues is a civil rights nightmare.
All this would achieve it to make heterosexuals second class citizens with reference to civic protection.
And here we have a typical confusion between behavior, which is a choice, and between the ATTRACTION, which is not a choice.
Someone who is more toward the Homosexual side of the spectrum might "choose" to marry a woman, but this is not going to affect at all the biological drive they are going to have to be aroused sexually by males.
It is times like these that I love having studied both biology and cognitive science.
MB
Ok, you miss the point big time. The source of the motive to choose a pertner of a different gender than previous partner choice is not relevant, the relevant fact is that it happens. People switch from gay to straight or vice versa. However if currently in a gay relationship and seeking housing then specific LGBT protection for the Fair Housing Act will provide rights that the same individual will not gain if they switch and choose an opposite sex partner.
Thus their rights are independent of their choices.
As for attraction, that isn't relevant either, when considering a live in sexual partner attraction might be the sole concern, but a large number of people are attracted to people they choose under better judgement not to live with. Long or short term partner choices are part chemical/pheromonal/hormonal but also part rational. After all how many people have the hots for someone, and say they could get them, but marry or partner someone else for better prospects. Others cant seperate from base attraction and if it all goes well live in bliss, but sometimes it wont; a good example being the battered partner who is clearly joined by attraction and co-habiting but if enabled to have better judgement would leave, and in many cases eventually do so. People also partner up, even marry for purely economic or even legal reasons. People co-habit or marry for green cards, citizenship or immigration benefits, money etc in sufficient numbers that it is pointless to place all co-habitation partnerhips as caused by attraction. Their gender preference is not connected to the phenomenon itself, only to their personal circumstances, so a gay person might charitably marry a mail order bride who wants to get a fast track to citizenship as much as a straight person could.
Peoples choice or partners is usually love based, and hopefully anyone who chose a partner will know them to some degree, but even that is not always a given, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience and plain just living together to save money and ending up having sex all happen.
The base dynamic however is not altered. Protected class status would give additional rights based on circumstances based on the partners being of same gender rather than opposite. LGBT people deserve provision in fair housing, but only at the same level heterosexuals do, no more, no less.
Orlanth wrote: However if currently in a gay relationship and seeking housing then specific LGBT protection for the Fair Housing act will provide rights that the same individual will not gain if they switch and choose an opposite sex partner.
Thus their rights are independent of their choices.
I can't make this point too many times. Adding "sexual orientation' as a protected class would be be orientation-neutral. It would not matter who you were involved with at what point in your life. If you could prove that you were discriminated against on the basis of whatever your actual or percieved sexual orientation happened to be at the moment of the discriminatory incident (straight included), you'd be protected by the law.
Orlanth wrote: However if currently in a gay relationship and seeking housing then specific LGBT protection for the Fair Housing act will provide rights that the same individual will not gain if they switch and choose an opposite sex partner.
Thus their rights are independent of their choices.
I can't make this point too many times. Adding "sexual orientation' as a protected class would be be orientation-neutral. It would not matter who you were involved with at what point in your life. If you could prove that you were discriminated against on the basis of whatever your actual or percieved sexual orientation happened to be at the moment of Tue discriminatory incident (straight included), you'd be protected by the law.
Just like race, religion, and sex.
That would be acceptable, no complaints there. However adding 'sexual orientation' to protected class status and adding 'LGBT' to protected class status are two different things.
@Orlanth: You're right. Sorry, here I am the victim of the confusing evolution of termjnolgy, and I should have stated in the OP that what I'd really want to see is "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" added to both bills, rather than just the LGBT community ..
Exctending protections to the LGBT community is the result I support, but I can agree that LGBT should not be specified to the detriment of other sexual orientations, and here I am talking about straight people and people with no particular sexual orientation at all.
In my opinion, the protections provided by the CRA of 64 (and it's amendments) are no longer relevant in 2015.
Now, this isn't me saying that discrimination and racism doesn't exist. That would be absurd. It absolutely does.
But the primary purpose of the CRA was to end voter discrimination, segregation of schools, and accessibility to public accommodations (businesses), and safety at work from being fired based on race/gender. I'll address each separately:
Voter Discrimination --> Its becoming increasingly apparent that the public will not let this happen. See the recent anti-gerrymandering decision made in Florida as a concrete example. But it's been apparent through the discussion of requiring an ID to vote that the majority of the US won't allow it, either socially or through legislation.
Segregation of Schools -- It no longer exists in the public system except through class demographics.. Publicly, it's completely invalid. It sill exists with private schools, most notably within HBCUs. I'm sure there some neo-nazi private school out there too, but I don't know about them.
Accessibility to Public Accommodations -- Businesses that openly discriminate in 2015 get put out of business. Simple as that. We have multiple examples from the uber litigious gay community from the past year to support that. IMO, businesses should be allowed to freely associate and reap the consequences of doing so.
Work -- See Frazz's commentary on Right to Work.
I don't think act is any longer necessary because, despite the very problems we still have with race relations in the US, I believe that we've culturally and technologically moved past the point where they're relevant. That's actually a good thing.
jasper76 wrote: @Orlanth: You're right. Sorry, here I am the victim of the confusing evolution of termjnolgy, and I should have stated in the OP that what I'd really want to see is "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" added to both bills, rather than just the LGBT community ..
Exctending protections to the LGBT community is the result I support, but I can agree that LGBT should not be specified to the detriment of other sexual orientations, and here I am talking about straight people and people with no particular sexual orientation at all.
Indeed so, and this measure would any protection necessary for the LGBT community without offering favoured status.
The difference is subtle but significant, with LGBT being protected if someone who ideintifies as LGBT, but doesn't encourage favoured status and the special demands made on society favoured status often results in. Some people will demands special status anyway, but some people always do, and singling out those in the LGBT community who do so it unfair and is not sufficient to warrant a call to withhold equality legislation if society deems there is a case for it.
Housing discrimination is still highly rampant, although the publics taste for enforcing that is weakest, due to the desire of most in the majority for segregation in practice .
Polonius wrote: Housing discrimination is still highly rampant, although the publics taste for enforcing that is weakest, due to the desire of most in the majority for segregation in practice .
That is better covered by a significant number of banking and lending regulations (including the follow up to the 64 CRA), including ECOA, and is supported by an entire government office dedicated solely to fair housing.
Some of which, it has been argued by people more well versed than I, helped lead to the mortgage crisis in 2008.....
BeAfraid wrote: No, people do not switch from gay to straight (and vice-versa).
They remain either Gay, Straight, or somewhere in the middle of the Spectrum.
Only their choice of partner changes.
But as to whether they are primarily attracted to men, to women, or to both (to whatever degree) does not change.
MB
But I think that might be the point several people are trying to make. Is there an impartial metric to determine whether a person is either gay or straight? There needs to be a clear divide, and cannot be based on partner choice (as that is obviously not the same as the actual biology, and clearly changes), if a law which gives extra protection to LGBT people over heterosexual people is to be enforced fairly.
Now that I understand what the question in the OP is actually asking, the answer should pretty clearly be no; instead, amend the CRA and FHA to include sexuality as a protected class, so that one group is not unfairly favoured over the other.
Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.
If a person measures a strong sexual attraction to a scene one would be aroused by if same-sex, but measures absolutely no response to a different-sex scene of the same sort, then they are gay.
And, if they have the exact opposite reaction, then they are straight.
These are opposing ends of a spectrum, along with people lie.
And the determinants of attraction are set sometime between around 5 - 9 months gestation, and 7 years of age. Some aspects might not arise until puberty, but generally, a personal sexual attractions are set in their very early childhood.
Also, the point about protected classes is that the NEED to be favored over other classes, because they TYPICALLY ARE MALIGNED by the majority.
That is why protected classes exist.
Yes, the language of things like Racial Discrimination applies to all 'races' (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity"), but it is SPECIFICALLY MINORITIES that are protected classes, because they are whom is typically discriminated again.
The same thing applies to homosexuals, transgendered, or bisexuals.
It is these groups against whom discrimination is usually applied, not to straight, normally gendered people (especially the White, Straight Male).
BeAfraid wrote: (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity")
Race and ethnicity aren't the same thing. If someone is using the word "ethnicity" as an analog for "race," they're incorrect. Your race can be one thing and your ethnicity can be another. Ethnic categories are also different than racial categories.
BeAfraid wrote: Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.
A plethysmograph is at least as rooted in hard science as are the e-meters Scientologists use to measure auras.
My understanding is that technically they aren't measuring auras, but rather Thetans, a type of alien ghost. Or it might be a ghost alien. I'm not 100% on the specifics of Thetan ecto/astrobiology.
BeAfraid wrote: Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.
If a person measures a strong sexual attraction to a scene one would be aroused by if same-sex, but measures absolutely no response to a different-sex scene of the same sort, then they are gay.
And, if they have the exact opposite reaction, then they are straight.
These are opposing ends of a spectrum, along with people lie.
And the determinants of attraction are set sometime between around 5 - 9 months gestation, and 7 years of age. Some aspects might not arise until puberty, but generally, a personal sexual attractions are set in their very early childhood.
Also, the point about protected classes is that the NEED to be favored over other classes, because they TYPICALLY ARE MALIGNED by the majority.
That is why protected classes exist.
Yes, the language of things like Racial Discrimination applies to all 'races' (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity"), but it is SPECIFICALLY MINORITIES that are protected classes, because they are whom is typically discriminated again.
The same thing applies to homosexuals, transgendered, or bisexuals.
It is these groups against whom discrimination is usually applied, not to straight, normally gendered people (especially the White, Straight Male).
MB
Interesting how you act like the stuff you just posted was a science fact. None of what you posted is proven science.
What you espouse is more like eugenics of the early 20th century, pseudoscience is pseudoscience.
GG
So, rather than dealing with yet another example of BeAfraid's ridiculous technobabble, I'll ask a very simple question: why does it matter if being gay/straight/whatever can change? We have all kinds of anti-discrimination laws about religion, and we grant their protection based on nothing more than statements of "I am {religion}". And we don't waste any time at all on absurd scenarios involving picking a new religion just to gain some anti-discrimination privileges, despite the fact that religion is clearly a choice. So why are we asking these pointless questions about sexuality/gender/etc?
Utah already passed such a fair housing law for LGBT people. It prevents any kind of discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual gender, preference, whatever.
They are not admissible in Court as evidence, but the objections are currently specious, and based upon a prior bias against objective measures of arousal. They come about because a subject can fake an arousal. But the opposite is not true. They cannot fake NOT being aroused. This can complicate its use to show pathological pedophilia or some other paraphilia, because the subject can fake being just as aroused by other stimuli (they will still remain aroused by their paraphilia).
Combined with an MEG or ƒMRI, we can adequately assess if the arousal is accompanied by actual sexual thoughts or activation of the regions of the brain correlated to sexual arousal.
And, with the increasing precision of the ƒMRI, we can begin to eliminate the "faking" of the Plethysmograph. Given maybe another five years, and we can dispense with it entirely, and just look at the neural correlates of arousal (and don't get hung up on the word "correlate" here - the links are pretty well established to be causal, but because of lingering philosophical arguments by many dualists, we have to prevaricate and use "Correlates" instead of "Conjunct" or "Causal" links/connection).
BeAfraid wrote: (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity")
Race and ethnicity aren't the same thing. If someone is using the word "ethnicity" as an analog for "race," they're incorrect. Your race can be one thing and your ethnicity can be another. Ethnic categories are also different than racial categories.
This is the popular media detailing what Geneticists have discovered over the last two decades since being able to sequence the genome of different groups once thought to be "races."
The Wikipedia article in this case remains fairly reliable (I know a few biologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Berkeley - at the least - who monitor the page for the typical racist baiting of the page, and attempts to alter it to suit their agendas):
wikipedia wrote:Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.
Since the second half of the 20th century, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context
Nature Magazine is FULL to overflowing with articles that deal with the phenotypic variations that we used to think of as "race."
Ultimately, though, there remain three broad groups that can be broken down into the only things that remain in contention among biologists as possibly (NOTE: Possible) be defined as Racial:
• Negroid (Sub-Saharan African)
• Nordic and Caucasian (This includes Semitic, and Indians)
• Asian and Athabaskan (This group has the identifying epicanthic folds over the eye).
And, there are distinct genomic markers (usually either retroviral or mDNA) that allow us to identify membership into one of these groups.
HOWEVER, there are populations which belong to more than one of these groups (in some cases all three), and we use the identification of their Haplogroup membership as a more accurate means of tracking population or ethnic group membership:
There is no such thing as "Race" the way most people think of it.
It is an outdated, 19th-Century concept which modern biology and genetics has been shown to be based in nothing more than European (Specifically English, in this case, but the Germans obviously jumped on that bandwagon) attitudes of "Racial Superiority" that arose in the 19th Century during the Colonial Period, and continuing from earlier ages, used to justify anti-semitism.
BeAfraid wrote: Then you have no idea what a Plethysmograph is.
No, you just haven't bothered to read your own links. They aren't considered valid evidence in court because they aren't reliable enough to meet the standards of legal evidence.
This can complicate its use to show pathological pedophilia or some other paraphilia, because the subject can fake being just as aroused by other stimuli (they will still remain aroused by their paraphilia).
Do you really not see how this completely undermines your "plethysmographicate them" argument? This hypothetical fake-gay person trying to get gay privileges can just fake being aroused by homosexual content. So not only have you once again tried to derail a thread with your technobabble "theories" you haven't even thought enough about them to see the obvious flaws.
Peregrine wrote: So, rather than dealing with yet another example of BeAfraid's ridiculous technobabble, I'll ask a very simple question: why does it matter if being gay/straight/whatever can change? We have all kinds of anti-discrimination laws about religion, and we grant their protection based on nothing more than statements of "I am {religion}". And we don't waste any time at all on absurd scenarios involving picking a new religion just to gain some anti-discrimination privileges, despite the fact that religion is clearly a choice. So why are we asking these pointless questions about sexuality/gender/etc?
This is ultimately the foundation that needs to be addressed.
Even IFF Sexual Behavior IS a choice, then it still requires legal protection, given the tremendous prejudice that homosexuals face from groups who fear/hate them (The origins of their fear and hatred turn out to be hilariously scatological when studies were actually done):
The more hilarious aspects of these studies are not reported here, but apparently they show an obsession by homophobes with the more scatological aspects of what they believe (wrongly) homosexuality is about.
Not hard, more of a question of why? I support marriage because: 1) this puts everyone on an equal footing; 2) everyone can now suffer equally.
Adding another protected class does the opposite of that. It will inevitably lead to affirmative action in housing, hiring, etc. and will be used as a protection that others don't have.
I don't think just adding "Sexual Orientation" will lead to any of that. It's not "you can't discriminate against black people" it's "you can't discriminate based on race". Just like "you can't discriminate based on gender". They protect all people. White, black. Gay, strait. Male, female. Affirmative action is unrelated, IMO.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't think just adding "Sexual Orientation" will lead to any of that. It's not "you can't discriminate against black people" it's "you can't discriminate based on race". Just like "you can't discriminate based on gender". They protect all people. White, black. Gay, strait. Male, female. Affirmative action is unrelated, IMO.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't think just adding "Sexual Orientation" will lead to any of that. It's not "you can't discriminate against black people" it's "you can't discriminate based on race". Just like "you can't discriminate based on gender". They protect all people. White, black. Gay, strait. Male, female. Affirmative action is unrelated, IMO.
HAHAHAHAHAHA ok thats funny
Why? AFAIK (which isn't very much, I admit, so I could be making a massive mistake here ) there is nothing in the CRA about affirmative action? It just says you can't discriminate.
Although, I doubt we'd see anything like that. Gay people really don't need any sort of affirmative action.
I find the likelihood of your scenario to be statistically uncertain. Special interest groups always want more power. Its the nature of special interest groups and politics.
Put them in the CRA and they are just another special interest group.
BeAfraid wrote: Yes, there is a clear divide to Gay/Straight, which can be measured with a device known as a Plethysmograph.
If a person measures a strong sexual attraction to a scene one would be aroused by if same-sex, but measures absolutely no response to a different-sex scene of the same sort, then they are gay.
And, if they have the exact opposite reaction, then they are straight.
These are opposing ends of a spectrum, along with people lie.
And the determinants of attraction are set sometime between around 5 - 9 months gestation, and 7 years of age. Some aspects might not arise until puberty, but generally, a personal sexual attractions are set in their very early childhood.
Also, the point about protected classes is that the NEED to be favored over other classes, because they TYPICALLY ARE MALIGNED by the majority.
That is why protected classes exist.
Yes, the language of things like Racial Discrimination applies to all 'races' (even though "race" isn't a thing, we now refer to it as "Ethnicity"), but it is SPECIFICALLY MINORITIES that are protected classes, because they are whom is typically discriminated again.
The same thing applies to homosexuals, transgendered, or bisexuals.
It is these groups against whom discrimination is usually applied, not to straight, normally gendered people (especially the White, Straight Male).
MB
What if one's normal tastes lean strongly to the heteronormative, but there's a few individuals one would not hesitate to sleep with, even though they're the same gender one is, and one can attain arousal in depictions of sexual/erotic media depicting couples of one's normal proclivities, one's rare proclivities, and stuff one isn't really into but it's still pretty hot all the same?
There is a marked difference between fooling a plethysmograph and the act of actually having sex with someone.
I have seen gay guys try to force themselves to have sex with women without being able to, and vice-versa, seen straight guys try to force sex with other guys to no effect.
Fooling the brain is not as easy when tactile/haptic and olfactory (especially olfactory) sensations are involved. Some pre-existing or latent attraction needs to exist.
More importantly, can a Plethysmograph be hooked up to an e-meter to find out if an alien ghost is gay?
On topic, the only protected classes for anything should be children, the elderly and the disabled. They are undeniably the weakest members of society.
I have seen gay guys try to force themselves to have sex with women without being able to, and vice-versa, seen straight guys try to force sex with other guys to no effect.
BeAfraid wrote: There is no such thing as "Race" the way most people think of it.
It is an outdated, 19th-Century concept which modern biology and genetics has been shown to be based in nothing more than European (Specifically English, in this case, but the Germans obviously jumped on that bandwagon) attitudes of "Racial Superiority" that arose in the 19th Century during the Colonial Period, and continuing from earlier ages, used to justify anti-semitism.
I agree with you, and I'm quite familiar with the pre-colonial and colonial development of the concept of race, and the problems involved.
That doesn't mean that race (however the term is used) and ethnicity are the same thing. Whether race is being used as a pseudoscientific term, or if it is being used simply as an analog for "skin color," either way it is still not the same thing as ethnicity, and there are a large number of ethnic groups that people identify as.
). The Civil Rights movement was far more vehement and vicious in comparison 
les. 
