Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Kentucky Was Getting Too Diverse Anyway
Kentucky's Gov. Ernie Fletcher just flashed the biggest ceremonial middle finger in recent memory. He signed an order declaring April 11 "Diversity Day" and "then cut from the state government's hiring policy a provision that explicitly protected public employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation."
If you're a gay man or woman trying to make his way through the rat race in Kentucky: Well, I hear West Virginia's pretty nice.
|4.13.06 @ 10:00AM|#
Student expelled from private college for being gay:
http://www.abpnews.com/944.article
Lest one get the idea that the Kentucky government is the only
Kentuckleberries giving gay people the finger. I guess one can take
the position that it is acceptable for private employers to
discriminate, but not state employers. That positions seems a bit
overnuanced to me.
|4.13.06 @ 10:04AM|#
He signed an order declaring April 11 "Diversity
Day"
Gosh, that's controversial, aint it?
If you're a gay man or woman trying to make his way through the
rat race in Kentucky: Well, I hear West Virginia's pretty
nice.
The HORROR! - of not getting the special treatment and gov't perks
you're owed because you have a sexual aberration. Surely
homosexuals have the same rights as "women and minorities" to file
bogus discrimination lawsuits!
|4.13.06 @ 10:08AM|#
So getting expelled due to one's sexual orientation is now
considered "not getting the special treatment and gov't perks
you're owed"?
If this university wants to disallow gays, well, I guess that is
their business, except when they take state funds. THen it's
everyone in the state of Kentucky's business, isn't it?
|4.13.06 @ 10:09AM|#
The HORROR! - of not getting the special treatment and gov't
perks you're owed because you have a sexual aberration.
Please. Not getting fired for what you do in the bedroom is a
perk?
|4.13.06 @ 10:12AM|#
"then cut from the state government's hiring policy a
provision that explicitly protected public employees from
discrimination based on their sexual orientation."
so you'd like more laws? more protection for certain groups? can
the state still discrimate against fat people? or will they get
special protection soon?
|4.13.06 @ 10:15AM|#
You know how you know if someone is against discrimination laws?
(hint: they've never experienced it - or - they engage in it)
JMJ
|4.13.06 @ 10:17AM|#
Student expelled from private college for being
gay:
Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him
up-front that they don't want him there?
From that URL:
WLEX and the Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper both reported
that Johnson had retained an attorney.
Oh, that's why. I can smell the land-shark money from here.
"We tell prospective students about our high standards before
they come. We are different by design and are non-apologetic about
our Christian beliefs."
Good for them.
That positions seems a bit overnuanced to me.
You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students
who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check.
|4.13.06 @ 10:22AM|#
Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him
up-front that they don't want him there?
Without knowing the subject it's hard to tell, but people aren't
neccessarily self-aware enough to know about their orientation. In
addition, I'm sure he could be an ex-gay who relapsed :p
Oh, that's why. I can smell the land-shark money from
here.
Good, I hope he sues the school so they'll never accept state
funding again. Why the heck would you be a private school when you
hang off the state teat?
You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students
who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check.
Wait a sec, we have state funded Muslim private schools now? When
did this happen?
|4.13.06 @ 10:23AM|#
That positions seems a bit overnuanced to me.
You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll
students who piss on the Koran in their spare time.
Check.
No. I am merely saying that I would have similar
anti-discrimination standards for private employers and for the
state acting in its capacity as an employer. Of course, this leaves
some open questions where I do not have a strong opinion yet,
including:
- what (if any) should those common anti-discrimination standards
be?
- should the same anti-discrimination standards be applied to
employers-seeking-employees as colleges-seeking-students?
- should there be some kind of a religious exception to any
anti-discriminations standard, something akin to a "conscience
clause" or conscientious objector status?
|4.13.06 @ 10:25AM|#
Mr F. Le Pu,
"Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him
up-front that they don't want him there?"
That's not the question. The question is - can a state funded
school or any school that benefits from the taxpayers (roads,
water, police, firemen, etc) be able to discriminate against some
Americans because certain lowlifes think gays are bad people?
"Oh, that's why. I can smell the land-shark money from here."
Why not? What recourse does he have? Should the perpetrators go to
prison (I wish - then we'd see how they like gays!)?
""We tell prospective students about our high standards before they
come. We are different by design and are non-apologetic about our
Christian beliefs."
Good for them."
Fuck them. The only reason the kid shouldn't have gone to the
school is that the very quote above tells you right there that the
school must not be very good.
"You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students
who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check."
So, you're comparing being gay in a "Christian" school with
urinating on the Bible (Koran)? Nice. And I suppose lying about a
blow job in a deposition is akin to outing a CIA agent too,
huh?
Look, if the school benefits from the taxpayers in anyway then they
should not be able to discriminate against gays. Anyone who thinks
otherwise may as well just pay there taxes directly to the
church.
JMJ
|4.13.06 @ 10:27AM|#
You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll
students who piss on the Koran in their spare time.
Check.
How is a student being gay, and a student pissing on a Koran even
remotely comparable?
|4.13.06 @ 10:28AM|#
If this university wants to disallow gays, well, I guess
that is their business, except when they take state
funds.
Do they take state funds? How about you tell us whether or not they
do before you make implications?
If they don't (and they shouldn't, and I doubt that they do,
because it's a religious school), then you're correct: it's their
business and not your business.
Please. Not getting fired for what you do in the bedroom is a
perk?
Making bogus claims to that effect because you got fired for
imcompetence is a perk. Having an employer who's intimidated into
not firing you in the first place is another.
|4.13.06 @ 10:30AM|#
- should there be some kind of a religious exception to any
anti-discriminations standard, something akin to a "conscience
clause" or conscientious objector status?
Behavior is usually a useful dividing line. If the hypothetical
Muslim school was accepting state money, it should be required to
accept non-Muslims; however, "students who piss on the Koran" could
be expelled.
Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells
him up-front that they don't want him there?
Wasn't this one used a lot about black people in the '50s and '60s?
It's hard for me to understand why he'd want to be there either,
but there are possible reasons. Maybe all the friends he grew up
with attend that school. Maybe it has a good program in something
he wants to study. Maybe he likes the teachers.
|4.13.06 @ 10:33AM|#
It's probably useless to point out to Mr. Le Mur no one said
anything of the kind. Private religious colleges have much more
leeway to discrimate against people than private businesses or
public colleges.
I'm totally fine with public employment having the least leeway to
discrimate against people for immutable characteristics like race,
sexual orientation or religion. If you want to a discriminatory
asshole, you don't deserve money from the very people you would
discriminate against.
|4.13.06 @ 10:34AM|#
Making bogus claims to that effect because you got fired for
imcompetence is a perk.
Talk about a straw man. Okay, I'm against bogus claims to that
effect.
|4.13.06 @ 10:39AM|#
Hey, kids!
It's the West Virginia link that's the story. Southern Baptist
college in Williamsburg, WVa, bounced a theatre arts major for
being gay. Theatre arts for straights? I guess that's no singing,
no dancing, no make-up, and no costumes.
|4.13.06 @ 10:40AM|#
Do they take state funds? How about you tell us whether or not they
do before you make implications?
Dude, serious, it takes a few seconds to google something before
you spout off about it:
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14313621.htm
First, as to why he attended the school in the first place:
But a copy of the student handbook provided by the university
confirmed the policy was not spelled out in 2003-04, when Johnson
chose to attend.
As to funding it recieves:
the proposed budget includes $10 million of state debt to construct
a pharmacy building on the school's Whitley County campus. The
budget also includes $1 million to fund scholarships for students
attending the college's yet-to-be created pharmacy
program.
I guess private means public now.
|4.13.06 @ 10:46AM|#
- should there be some kind of a religious exception to any
anti-discriminations standard, something akin to a "conscience
clause" or conscientious objector status?
Behavior is usually a useful dividing line. If the hypothetical
Muslim school was accepting state money, it should be required to
accept non-Muslims; however, "students who piss on the Koran" could
be expelled.
I wasn't talking about a "conscience clause" for the employer (or
college as the case may be). In other words, a clause where the
employer/college can escape the effects of an anti-discrimination
rule by making an affirmation that the employer's religion makes it
undesirable for it to hirethe protected minority.
I think you are probably coming at it from the prevailing ethos,
which is that state governments, in their capacity as employers,
should have to follow different anti-discrimination rules than
private employers and that at college, it should make all the
difference as to whether the college gets any gov't money.
I am challenging that ethos. I think the distinctions it makes are
artificial and somewhat unjust. I am arguing for a one-size-fits
all anti-discrimination law standard for gov't employers and
private employers. To clarify a possible point of confusion, I am
not saying that the state should be allowed to discriminate when it
comes to according rights to a suspect, assessing property taxes,
handing out traffic tickets, or any of the other helpful things a
state does in its role as an organ of gov't. However, I am saying
that when a state hires employees or partially subsidizes colleges,
then the state hirers or admissions officers should be following
the same anti-discrimination standards as their counterparts in the
purely private sector. No more, no less.
|4.13.06 @ 10:49AM|#
Well you see, metalgrid, Mr. Le Mur was too busy googling up the
evidence that gay people are filing meritless lawsuits when they
are fired for poor job performance.
Evidence that he'll show us any minute now.
Yep, any minute now...
|4.13.06 @ 11:00AM|#
You know how you know if someone is against discrimination
laws?
The parrot learned a new phrase!
Wait a sec, we have state funded Muslim private schools now?
When did this happen?
I didn't say we did, thanks for trying to put words in my
mouth.
Do you think we should have state-funded Muslim schools? I
don't.
How about state-funded Christian schools? I don't.
How is a student being gay, and a student pissing on a Koran
even remotely comparable?
They're offensive to and contrary to the tenants of the religions
that these people are free to practice.
Anyone want to buy some nicely embroidered hearts? They're just the
right size to sew onto a shirt sleeve. How about bumper stickers?
They say "I support the company that made this bumper sticker."
dhex|4.13.06 @ 11:02AM|#
BECAUSE BOTH ARE BAD OK?
(because both offend the myths of others? and we can't have
that!)
|4.13.06 @ 11:11AM|#
Umm Joe, is Le Mur your libertarian caricature? I was obviously late to the party.
|4.13.06 @ 11:29AM|#
Even though I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws for private
businesses due to freedom of association, the government should be
held to them because the government isnot free to associate with
whom they want. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you get treated
the same by everyone, no matter who you choose to boff.
And a private university receiving state funds had better not
discriminate based on sexual orientation either. If it offends them
so much to have a gay student, they should pay back the state's
money.
|4.13.06 @ 11:33AM|#
They're offensive to and contrary to the tenants of the
religions that these people are free to practice.
You don't a difference between an overt act of disrespect against
someone's faith, and person's existence being offensive to
someone's faith?
|4.13.06 @ 11:42AM|#
Even though I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws for
private businesses due to freedom of association, the government
should be held to them because the government isnot free to
associate with whom they want.
I am saying that the state government in capacity as employer
should have the same freedom of association that private employers
have. I am drawing a distinction between rights afforded by the
government and perks (eg, jobs) given by the government (and its
private contractors and subcontractors) in its discretion.
I think the current system is set up to push protected minorities
into government jobs. I think people use those gov't jobs as an
excuse in their minds to excuse discrimination in the private
sector more than they otherwise would. I think the current system
causes the private gov't subcontractor economy to become separate
from the rest of the private economy which causes inefficiencies
that end up costing taxpayer money.
On the education side, I think the federal government leverages
small money into large control. There is a lot of gamesmanship
(gamespersonship?) when it comes to expunging the college of every
last gov't dollar. Again, this is inefficient.
As far as the constitutional argument goes, I think the commerce
clause trumps the free association clause. I do think college
admissions are a commerce matter.
MP|4.13.06 @ 11:43AM|#
Even though I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws for
private businesses due to freedom of association, the government
should be held to them because the government isnot free to
associate with whom they want. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you
get treated the same by everyone, no matter who you choose to
boff.
One beef I have with anti-discrimination laws is proving that
discrimination occurred. If it was simply based on direct evidence
(such as a tape recording that says "we don't hire queers"), then I
might be more forgiving to the concept. But since cases are
typically based on "patterns of practice" and other forms of
mind-reading, I'm not sympathetic to the concept.
|4.13.06 @ 11:48AM|#
So how does our Troll of the day feel about the job guarantee
for 10% minorities (your minimum black requirement apparently) in
state jobs by this GOP gov at the same signing ceremony?
...He also said his executive order is meant to be an affirmative
action policy that sets high goals for the state to have minorities
make up at least 10 percent of the government's work force...
|4.13.06 @ 11:55AM|#
So how does our Troll of the day feel about the job
guarantee for 10% minorities (your minimum black requirement
apparently) in state jobs by this GOP gov at the same signing
ceremony?
I think the extent of the guarantee, whether 10%, 0% or 99% should
be the same for government and state employers. As far as whether
the guarantee should be 0% (no guarantee at all), 10% or 99%, I
express no opinion and have no strong opinion.
...He also said his executive order is meant to be an
affirmative action policy that sets high goals for the state to
have minorities make up at least 10 percent of the government's
work force...
Gay ghetto stuck to government corps. Not good to set up this kind
of job-ghetto at all. especially bad when one wants to rollback
government jobs -- cost cutting suddenly becomes a gay rights
issue. Solution: same standard for gov't and private employers.
|4.13.06 @ 12:03PM|#
How is a student being gay, and a student pissing on a Koran
even remotely comparable?
They're offensive to and contrary to the tenants of the religions
that these people are free to practice.
1) It's "tenets," dummy.
2) Even the Catholics understand the difference between "being gay"
and "fucking the same sex," and are willing to concede that one is
sinful and the other is not. You apparently have not reached that
particular satori.
|4.13.06 @ 12:17PM|#
Go easy on the guy Phil. Catholicism has had several thousand years to split hairs to rationalize prejudice. Baptists just haven't had the time to develop such subtlety.
|4.13.06 @ 12:37PM|#
The college was a Baptist college... and obviously religion was
important to the student who went to school there before getting
kicked out.
Wait... so this guy was raised to be religious, Baptist even... and
went to a Baptist college... and he still turned out to be
gay???
WHOA. NO WAY.
|4.13.06 @ 1:17PM|#
Well, a discussion near to my heart. First, I live in Kentucky.
Second, I graduated from said private college.
"Fuck them. The only reason the kid shouldn't have gone to the
school is that the very quote above tells you right there that the
school must not be very good."
Actually, JMJ, Cumberland is a wonderful school full of people more
caring and intelligent than many of the academic blowhards I have
to deal with everyday in grad. school. The ADMINISTRATION, however,
are a bunch of thugs. I can't say they don't have the right, being
a (quasi) private institution, but it is still ridiculous and,
what's more, hypocritical. Considering that 1) they are equating
homosexuality (a state of being) with a sex act (pre-marital sex),
and 2) The other things we're supposed to sign off on not doing
(drinking, sex, etc.) is routinely broken, I wonder if the kid may
not have a pretty solid case. At any rate, and especially because
this place is my alma mater, I feel it my right to ridicule the
idiots in charge and call them thugs-- which I do, for all kinds of
reasons. I am not a Christian, but I know enough about it to know
that Christianity has NOTHING to do with what these assholes are up
to. It's all bible-belt money pandering.
And as for Ernie Fletcher, he could burn in hell for all I care,
the jackass.
eric
|4.13.06 @ 1:49PM|#
If, as a private business owner, I want to hire all black
lesbians should I be allowed to do so? I think so. My customers are
free to purchase my products or not as they see fit.
If, as a private Atheist school dean, I want to exclude anybody
with a remotely religious cell in thier body should I be allowed to
do so? I think so because as a private school I am supposed to
derive 100% of my funds from the Student admissions and alumni. By
discriminating against religious wackos the only thing that suffers
is my budget.
A government entity derives 100% of it budget through coercion of
the public at large which includes straight white men, black
lesbians, religious fundimentalists and atheists. The body which
takes money from all people by force has no choice but to offer
employment to all people.
The only way to correct this deficiency is to reduce the size and
scope of government thereby reducing the employee base.
|4.13.06 @ 1:56PM|#
If, as a private business owner, I want to hire all black
lesbians should I be allowed to do so? I think so. My customers are
free to purchase my products or not as they see fit.
Even if they did establish quotas for private commerce, you would
still be free to terminate your business and asociate with all the
black lesbians who will have you on a non-commercial footing.
Two can play at the let's find the hidden freedom game!
|4.13.06 @ 2:21PM|#
Well, here is the thing:
The government should not discriminate in any way, shape, or form,
period. It is one thing for a religious institution to not accept
gay people, but the government has no buisness with what people do
in their bedroom. It should be criminal, not just lawsuit
territory, for the government to discriminate on sexual
preference.
On the other hand, making discrimination laws specificly for gay
people is a bit silly. Do you also support laws that protect
"nerds", or fat people (it is an epidemic, not a lifestyle choice
you know!), or discriminating against NASCAR fans. What kind of
arbitrary group can you think up to be an oppressed minority? Can
Trekkies demand equal protection under the law? What about civil
war reenactors. The way to eliminate discrimination in government
is to create a set of objective criteria for enployment and
advancement, not create a bunch of imaginary victim groups.
Laws against discriminating based on race came about because of the
unique history of slavery and apartied in America. Race was a
special case with unique historical circumstances.
|4.13.06 @ 2:30PM|#
Sheesh, Le Mur's homophobic rantings are making Jersey look reasonable. Bigots like Le Mur are just one of the reasons why I became an atheist.
|4.13.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Akira, sweetie, you didn't become 'an atheist', you became a
religion-hating bigot and an unsufferable ueber-asshat to boot, who
simply can't the fuck shut up.
And, by the way, Jersey never looks reasonable.
|4.13.06 @ 4:08PM|#
Rex:
a reminder that many states actually have laws against homosexual
sex. as a result, homosexuals have often been legally prosecuted
and persecuted for consensual acts that most here wouldn't consider
fit subjects for criminalization.
if one weren't intending to discriminate among state employees by
sexual orientation, then why would he bother eliminating that
clause?
|4.13.06 @ 7:31PM|#
Two can play at the let's find the hidden freedom
game!
Nothing hidden here. Let's try this one on then. I run a Christian
Bookstore and Akira walks in for an interview. In the course of the
interview I ask him how well versed in the Bible he is. His
response is "Well, because I am an Athiest I haven't read it all
the way through." Is it discrimination for me to not hire him? He
has read enough of the KJV Bible to sell plaques with 'footprints
in the sand' but why would I want to have a godless heathen selling
religious artifacts for me? Perhaps I should just hire a Gay man
and an Atheist for good measure, eh? I am sure that my customer
base would just love that! My point is that as a business owner, I
derive my income from people who willingly purchase products from
me. They have a right to go to my competitor if they don't like
anything about my business, including my hiring practices.
Now, I am for legitimate ideas on how to diversify business
including hiring the multitudes of racial mixes, all 3 sexes, all
manner of sexual orientation, and so on but to have the government
tell me that I need to hire a black lesbian Pagan for my WASP
Christian bookstore over an equally qualified straight Christian
white guy is rediculous.
Sure, somebody will say "But why would she want to work there when
nobody will like her?" I don't care why she wants to work here,
perhaps it is to sabotage my company or perhaps it is because she
is a masochist. Either way, the government shouldn't be telling me
who I can and cannot hire, particularly when it conflicts with my
personal belief structure.
==============
As an aside, I have no knowledge of how much of the KJV Bible Akira
has actually read.
Names and places in this post are purely coincidental and any
resemblence to real persons, living or deceased, is
unintentional.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245