Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.

Just wow. Even Dakka manages to surprise me sometimes.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm not even sure there is any federal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation (Wikipedia says only 21 states currently outlaw such discrimination).

Sexual orientation/Identify is not a federally protected class.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

The fact that you asked why it's not OK to sometimes discriminate against someone based on who they are intrinsically means any explanation as to why will be, as is often the case with you, a foolhardy exercise in feigned obtuseness, strawmen, and goalpost moving. Perhaps someone else will play, but I advise against it.

 cincydooley wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Congrats?

I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"

Actually, no I wouldn't.

Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.

Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have. Gay men have to worry that if they are walking down the street, holding hands with their partner, if they will get harrased. High profile people coming out makes them more notnoticeable and decreases the hate.

The fact that you asked why it's not OK to sometimes discriminate against someone based on who they are intrinsically means any explanation as to why will be, as is often the case with you, a foolhardy exercise in feigned obtuseness, strawmen, and goalpost moving. Perhaps someone else will play, but I advise against it.

1. I'm trying to have a policy/philosophical argument. I love how you immediate leap to attacking me. Is this how your mother raised you young man?

2. Now back to the argument. Why not? The FIrst Amendment provides an absolute protection against the federales for your rights to speech, assembly, and religion (including who you choose to associate with).

3. Now about my idea. Is it not evidence on its face of harassment. Merely inquiring or observing a person's proclivities as evidence of harassment. I wonder if there's case law on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Congrats?

I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"

Actually, no I wouldn't.

Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.

Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have. Gay men have to worry that if they are walking down the street, holding hands with their partner, if they will get harrased. High profile people coming out makes them more notnoticeable and decreases the hate.

I was of the, "why on earth does it matter" crowd, until this was pointed out. Even without discrimination, a regular teenager typically has issues with self image (well like all humans actually), and this would help that.

 Frazzled wrote:
[The FIrst Amendment provides an absolute protection against the federales for your rights to speech, assembly, and religion (including who you choose to associate with).

The first amendment is not at all an absolute right. There are tons of restrictions on it. You know this - the usual example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Fighting words, obscenity, threats, slander, etc etc etc.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.

Just wow. Even Dakka manages to surprise me sometimes.

If this was a slight against my opinion, I don't get the point.

Of the ones you just mentioned, only slander is not an immediate situation action. Aka fighting words (which actually IS NOT one..) and threats only work if they are immediate and actionable.

Oscenity is almost never actionable. Besides you're arguing FOR obscenity laws - you know historically thats often a method of persecution against gays right?

Again - why? The Constitution protects against speech and actions you don't like. Why should they be protected? Why should any class be protected?

EDIT: never mind. I want to have a policy argument, and you can't do that here. People will just call you names. Everyone please carry on.

And oh, Apple sucks. Sumsung uber alles!

I, personally, have close friends and family members, who, upon seeing a same-sex couple even just kissing on television will climb up onto the sofa, scrunch themselves into a ball and look like they've just seen a diseased spider-mouse race across the carpet after relieving themselves in their coffee mug.

There's still plenty of ways to go with this sort of thing. So, even if I'm not an apple fan particularly, it's still good to see important people to the world continue discussions on this.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.

Just wow. Even Dakka manages to surprise me sometimes.

Would that be a bad thing, you mean?

@ Frazzled: I don't think the federal government should get in the business of telling people who they should choose to hang out with, what kind of people they should or should not find ickky, or what kind of lifestyles religions should or should not promote.

I think the federal government should provide the same protections to homosexuals that they do for race, ethnicity, gender, age, and religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in.

Out of curiosity, what is an 'allyou' dorm?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Congrats?

I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"

Actually, no I wouldn't.

Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.

Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have.

I guess you'd probably be in a better position to comment on this then - so in the LGBT and allyou dorms that you're living in, what is the overall reaction to this announcement?

I don't talk to them or even know who is who.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Congrats?

I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"

Actually, no I wouldn't.

Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.

Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have. Gay men have to worry that if they are walking down the street, holding hands with their partner, if they will get harrased. High profile people coming out makes them more notnoticeable and decreases the hate.

exactly, I'd like not to die for falling in love and getting married...
or those types that tell you to "not shove your sexuality in people's faces" when you ask for the right to marry or want to hold hands, sure straight people are allowed to hold hands and kiss in public, but cause some people find it "gross" that a dude wants to kiss a dude suddenly a line has been crossed...

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

The fact that you asked why it's not OK to sometimes discriminate against someone based on who they are intrinsically means any explanation as to why will be, as is often the case with you, a foolhardy exercise in feigned obtuseness, strawmen, and goalpost moving. Perhaps someone else will play, but I advise against it.

being an idiot is intrinsic,

so is being a pedophille.

is it ok to discriminate against stupid people and/or pedophilles? (not comparing being gay *morally* to being either, but in that these qualities are intrinsic, its comparable. just because qualities are not chosen, does not affect acceptance of those qualities. The actual merits of the qualities is what makes them acceptable or not, which is why being gay is accepted but being a pedo is not, choice has 0 relevance.)

Following the announcement ISIS combatants decided to ditch their iPhones.

BREAKING: ISIS combatants ditch iPhones following Tim Cook revelations

— Pan-Arabia Enquirer (@arabiaenquirer) October 30, 2014

A leading Saudi cleric also urged his supporters to drop the iPhone.

BREAKING: Saudi cleric urges iPhone users to switch to 4th generation model in wake of Tim Cook revelation http://t.co/VGZIYrjjXv

— Pan-Arabia Enquirer (@arabiaenquirer) October 30, 2014

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't talk to them or even know who is who.

You live in those dorms and don't talk to 'them'?!?

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't talk to them or even know who is who.

You live in those dorms and don't talk to 'them'?!?

Stop deluding me to make inappropriate jokes D:

 whembly wrote:

A leading Saudi cleric also urged his supporters to drop the iPhone.

That's, like, soooper bad. I hear those new iPhones bend when you do that.

 whembly wrote:


Following the announcement ISIS combatants decided to ditch their iPhones.

BREAKING: ISIS combatants ditch iPhones following Tim Cook revelations

Good lord. Sex slaves and mass rape are OK, but a homosexual achieving success in business is a bridge too far? What a confused set of ethics...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't talk to them or even know who is who.

You live in those dorms and don't talk to 'them'?!?

Stop deluding me to make inappropriate jokes D:

Hard to talk when your mouth is... nevermind.

 easysauce wrote:
(not comparing being gay *morally* to being either, but in that these qualities are intrinsic, its comparable. just because qualities are not chosen, does not affect acceptance of those qualities. The actual merits of the qualities is what makes them acceptable or not, which is why being gay is accepted but being a pedo is not, choice has 0 relevance.)

You're assuming sexuality necessarily involves sex, which is wrong. It is possible to be of a certain sexuality and also remain celibate.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
(not comparing being gay *morally* to being either, but in that these qualities are intrinsic, its comparable. just because qualities are not chosen, does not affect acceptance of those qualities. The actual merits of the qualities is what makes them acceptable or not, which is why being gay is accepted but being a pedo is not, choice has 0 relevance.)

You're assuming sexuality necessarily involves sex, which is wrong. It is possible to be of a certain sexuality and also remain celibate.

???
no I do not make that assumption... re read please before making your incorrect conclusions into an argument that I am not even making.

Because that has nothing to do with what I posted... OFC you can be a celebate straight/gay/pedophille.... that makes 0 difference regarding acceptableness of that sexuality based on it being (or not being) a *choice*

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't talk to them or even know who is who.

You live in those dorms and don't talk to 'them'?!?

Well I do. But I moved there a few weeks ago after a fight with my roommate. So I hang out with my friends from the other hall, alot

So easysauce, do you think that someone who has a predilections to socially unnaceptable behavior, but does not act on them at all, should be discriminated against because of those predilictions?

Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?

 jasper76 wrote:

Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?

Um... dude... that happens all the time.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?

Um... dude... that happens all the time.

But should it happen? I can understand if a person of low intelligence cannot perform a job, they should get fired, but only because they cannot perform the job, not because they are of low intelligence. I see a disctinction here, anyway, but acknowledge I may be splitting hairs.

Of course it should happen. It HAS to happen in a technologically based society. Do you want a mouthbreather flying the airplane?

 Frazzled wrote:
Of course it should happen. It HAS to happen in a technologically based society. Do you want a mouthbreather flying the airplane?

If he's good at flying airplanes, why not? As said above, I know I may be splitting hairs here.

I don't care. Do. Your. Job. Airborne.

 jasper76 wrote:
So easysauce, do you think that someone who has a predilections to socially unnaceptable behavior, but does not act on them at all, should be discriminated against because of those predilictions?

Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?

Should we? thats a complicated question, one I cannot answer properly for all of society.

do we?

absolutely yes....

we "discriminate" against stupid people all the time, someone with F's doesnt get into university like someone with A's... plenty of other examples of situations where the stupid person gets the short end of the stick... this kind of discrimination would mostly be seen as acceptable in society (should it be? I dont know... probably, otherwise "hey just because im too stupid to do the job, doesnt mean you cannot hire me" becomes a thing)

people who admit to having pedophillic thoughts are institutionalized or worse, regardless of acting out those thoughts or not...


keep in mind, my point is strickly about *CHOICE* not being relevant to the acceptableness of the person,

that being gay isnt a choice, does not matter *at ALL* when determining if it is acceptable or not, the merits of being gay determine that.

People keep touting lines like "you cannot choose to be gay or not, so because of that being gay is ok"

while they are correct that being gay is OK, their justification for *why* is totally whack.

my arguement is "being gay is ok, regardless of choice in the matter. If simply not having a choice about your sexual preferences is enough to justify it being ok, then all sexual preferences (which would include beastiality/pedos/ect) are "ok" because none of them involve choice. Since beastiality/pedos are most certainly *not* ok, despite the person not having a choice in their preferance, then choice is a totally irrelevant factior in determining if a sexuality is acceptable or not."