Senate Mulls Outlawing Anti-Gay Job Discrimination; What Will Come of Freedom of Association?

The kind of rainbow flag the government stitches together after citizens have been fighting the fight for decades.Credit: procsilas / Foter.com / CC BYThe Senate is scheduled to vote today on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of verboten reasons to deny somebody employment. According to The Washington Post, all 55 Democrats are on board. They need five Republicans to join their side to avoid a filibuster and that may well happen.

Then, of course, it will die in the Republican-controlled House. It is probably not cynical to suggest that this is all part of the plan. Okay – maybe it’s a little cynical. But gays were used as a wedge issue by the right back in 2004 in the midst of the struggling Iraq War. Now the left’s signature achievement under Barack Obama’s administration is struggling. Given the incredibly quick (historically speaking) shifts in opinion in favor toward accepting gay people, it would be foolish of the left not to try to run with this and force some tough choices on Republican congress members leading up to the midterms. The Washington Post notes that support for ENDA-like laws is now in the majority in all states:

Nearly all recent opinion polls indicate that a large majority of the American public — more than 70 percent — supports efforts to make employment discrimination against gay and lesbians illegal. Of course, these national numbers are not what the senators are likely to care about. However, when we use national polls to estimate opinion by state, we find that majorities in all 50 states support ENDA-like legislation (note that in 1996, majorities in only 36 states supported ENDA). Today, public support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts.

Libertarians who believe that hiring policies – even discriminatory ones -- fall under the First Amendment’s “freedom of association” provision may end up getting lumped in with the religious right on this one (not that this is a new thing).

I wrote about the prospect of ENDA’s passage back in April, wondering whether there was actually data that backed up a real need for laws to protect against anti-gay discrimination in the first place. Andrew Sullivan noted on Sunday that following the passage of the federal hate crime laws in 2009, there have been only two prosecutions for anti-gay cases. But despite Sullivan’s previous opposition to anti-discrimination laws, he has relented:

[T]he libertarian position on such crimes is largely moot – for good and ill. The sheer weight of anti-discrimination law is so heavy and so entrenched in our legal culture and practice, no conservative would seek to abolish it. It won’t happen. And if such laws exist, and are integral to our legal understanding of minority rights, then to deny protection to one specific minority (which is very often the target of discrimination) while including so many others, becomes bizarre at best, and bigoted at worst. Leaving gays out sends a message, given the full legal context, that they don’t qualify for discrimination protection, while African-Americans and Jews and Catholics and Latinos and almost everyone else is covered by such protections. It’s foolish to stick to a principle, however sincere, in the face of this reality.

Secondly, the federal government has ceased its own discrimination policies in marriage and military service and therefore now has some small sliver of moral standing to lecture private individuals across all states. My objections twenty years ago are now moot.

Put those two developments together and I would not vote against ENDA if I, God help us, were a Senator. But I would vote for it with my eyes open. I don’t think it will make much difference in reality just as I don’t believe hate crime laws make much difference in reality. Of course that’s an empirical question and I promise readers horrified by my luke-warm support of this that I will gladly recant such skepticism if ENDA truly does lead to a flurry of successful suits across the country against anti-gay bias.

I think I’ll stick to my sincere principles. The ending of the federal government’s discriminatory practices still doesn’t give them moral standing to lecture anybody about anything. Governments are not our moral guardians or arbiters and is still prone to extending and retracting various privileges to certain citizens on the basis of who is in control.

Over at Cato, Walter Olson out-cynics me by suggesting that pushing ENDA is a way for politicians to take credit for cultural shifts they had nothing to do with. He also wonders if there is an upper limit the number of categories where private actors’ rights of freedom of association will no longer apply:

[A]t some point we do need to stop adding new groups to the parade—either that, or see freedom of association turn into a presumption of something else. At what point do we say no to future demands that protected-group status be accorded to employees based on political and controversial systems of belief, physical appearance (the “looksism” issue), family responsibilities, résumé gaps because of unemployment or other reasons, or use of lawful products or engagement in lawful activities in off hours—to name just a few of the areas that in fact have been the subject of real-world agitation in recent years? If we say yes to all, we introduce a new presumption—familiar from the prevailing labor law in parts of Europe—that no employer should be free to terminate or take other “adverse action” against an employee without being prepared to show good cause to a judge. That is exactly the goal of some thinkers on the Left, but it should appall believers in a free economy.

That’s reason enough to oppose ENDA, as I see it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Free to associate with all approved groups. That which is not prohibited is mandatory.

  • MJGreen||

    Freedom to avoid associating with some people is not a real freedom in the first place. Some Americans are just too stupid to realize which freedoms are worth having.

  • ||

    Okay. Well then I will just get a group of people to force you to support the local church, and I don't want to hear any complaining from you because you have no right to avoid associating with a group of people.

  • MJGreen||

    Yes, but churches are not groups that you really want to associate with, so obviously this is not a case where you can be forced to associate.

    It's all very complicated. Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous. The good news is that top men are here to figure out what is and isn't worthwhile.

  • ||

    I see I need to recalibrate my sarcastometer.

  • sarcasmic||

    What Will Come of Freedom of Association?

    What do you mean? Freedom of association means you are free to associate with anyone you please, even if it means forcing yourself onto them, and if you're a member of a protected class there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it!

    Freedom is force!

  • PapayaSF||

    I suspect all this boils down to 1) more money for trial lawyers, and 2) some awkward situations in which bearded transvestites demand to be hired as kindergarten teachers.

  • Tony||

    The right to be an employer is not absolute. You aren't allowed to employ children, you aren't allowed to employ people in sweatshop conditions, you aren't allowed to discriminate in hiring, etc. The market itself was never up to the task of ridding society of these ills, and there is every legitimate reason for governments to enforce them. All that aside, Sullivan is right, and this is the same case to be made with marriage: if these laws exist to protect other minorities, there is no legitimate reason not to extend them to gays. The libertarian position that "freedom of association" trumps these protections is valid and based simply on differing moral priorities. But even a libertarian should be able to also entertain the idea that *if* these protections exist, they should not exclude gays.

  • Agammamon||

    Going by that logic - where do you draw the line? At what point do we say 'we've protected all the people who deserve protection, we're done here'? Is it some point short of you can't choose to not associate with anyone? If so, where?

  • DJF||

    """"they should not exclude gays.""""

    How about Nazi's? They are a minority who are discriminated against.

    Shouldn't the ADL be required to set aside a positions on their board and amongst their executives and workers for Nazis?

  • Zeb||

    You know why that's not the same thing.

  • entropy||

    Because nazis are evil and bad people?

    Don't some people say that about gays?

  • Zeb||

    No. I'd say the same if Catholics or people who volunteer to read to dying children were the example. It is because Nazis are Nazis by choice. It is a belief system, not an aspect of one's personality or biology.

  • entropy||

    I don't know how you can make that distinction so easily.

    If you say people are predisposed by their genes to prefer a certain type of sex, how can you say they aren't predisposed to certain ideologies? Maybe rampant xenophobia is an evolutionary strategy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except freedom isn't, or at least shouldn't be, conditional that way. What you're suggesting is "freedom of association as long as we approve of your basis for choosing".

    But, let's cite a different example, just to satisfy me. Obviously it's a horrible case of discrimination that supermodels don't spend all their time with poor, fat, ugly guys.

  • Zeb||

    "freedom of association as long as we approve of your basis for choosing".

    Is most certainly not what I am saying. I don't think there should be anti-discrimination rules for private employers at all. All I am saying is that there is more of a rational basis for protecting gays from discrimination than for protecting Nazis. Not that any of it is sufficient basis for a law that applies to private parties.

  • entropy||

    Did you carefully weigh the pros and cons and choose to be libertarian?

    I can tell you I've pretty much always been an anti-authoritarian individualist, even when I was 6 and didn't know how to spell libertarian.

    Possibly I went out and found all the nifty ideological dressing that suited my personality.

    What would my politics have been if I had been born with a personality that was insecure, spiteful and dim-witted? Possibly nazi.

  • Tony||

    It's not about protecting minority groups. It's about protecting all people from discrimination based on biological characteristics. Yes, the motivation for these protections is the existence of practices that harmed minorities. It's pretty easy to draw the line. If people are being harmed by being discriminated against for a certain innate characteristic that's irrelevant to the jobs they're applying for, that characteristic should be considered for nondiscrimination protection.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Tony is applying for the job of live bra model.

  • Zeb||

    What about stupidity? That is often an innate condition that people have no choice in.

  • Fluffy||

    If I'm the one giving out the job, every last preference of mine right down to your fucking nail polish is relevant to the job.

    Not unless I get to go through your refrigerator and declare that all your food preferences are irrelevant to the "job" food is applying for. Don't like milk? Fuck you, that preference is irrelevant.

  • wareagle||

    are gays being fired often for being gay? You're just griefing. Most employers really don't give a shit about more than your job performance.

  • prolefeed||

    Some employers are homophobes and won't knowingly hire anyone who is gay because they think their sexual preferences are disgusting. This is a reason for individuals to choose not do business with that employer, rather than a reason to drag government force into the equation.

  • Agammamon||

    "If people are being harmed by being discriminated against for a certain innate characteristic that's irrelevant to the jobs they're applying for, that characteristic should be considered for nondiscrimination protection."

    Who decides what's relevant to the job? The applicant (who's biased), the government (who has no idea), or the guy actually paying for the work?

    *And*

    Similar to what you mentioned below - if the characteristic is truly irrelevant then it won't be considered in the first place, making the law moot.

    What it really is, is that you object to people deciding certain things are important to them that you don't think should be and you're willing to use the force of law to impose your beliefs on them.

  • some guy||

    I should have read this before posting at (12:49). You did a much better job presenting this point than I did, Agammamon.

  • Agammamon||

    Grazie!

  • some guy||

    It's about protecting all people from discrimination based on biological characteristics

    Everything that defines your skills and experience have a basis in your biological characteristics. If I'm making a movie do I have to open the leading role to all people, including men, even if the role was written for a woman? If I'm hiring firefighters do I have to consider quadriplegics? If I need a plumber do I have to consider someone with severe claustrophobia and arachniphobia?

    I think what you mean is that it's about protecting all people from discrimination based on a few arbitrarily selected biological characteristics.

  • Tony||

    Sure.

  • ||

    I would add that "Sexual Identity", which is to be protected, is rather specifically the opposite of a biological characteristic. Moreover, homosexuality is not a biological characteristic any more than left-handedness and junk-food cravings.

    Personally, gender identity in particular, is pretty disgusting for the government to 'protect'. Arguably enshrining a person's right to defraud their employer. I don't generally consider myself a social conservative but I do share some kindred spirit in this aspect; homosexuality and gender identity should the litmus test for non-issues in our government. If you're a Congressman and you find yourself reviewing laws/documents about the 1% of the 5% of your constituents who can't check the "married checkbox" on their taxes. You need to set those documents aside and take another F*cking look at the budget, Obamacare, the NSA, or our drone program.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    How about short people? M. Gladwell has studies showing that of all the different groups you can put people into, short people are discriminated against the most in the work place with regards to position and salary.

  • waffles||

    Short people don't gotta reason to live. I think some version of that is codified somewhere.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The market itself was never up to the task of ridding society of these ills

    Why is children working a social ill?

    and there is every legitimate reason for governments to enforce them.

    ...which is?

  • Tony||

    Why is children working a social ill?

    Because children should be in school learning to be future contributors to an advanced economy, not fodder for factories in a third-world economy.

    ...which is?

    It's government's job to correct significant societal problems.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    It's government's job to correct significant societal problems.

    Who says all so-cons are Baptists?

  • DJF||

    “””It's government's job to correct significant societal problems.””’

    What happens if government determines that homosexuals are a significant societal problem and orders that they not be hired

    The same government power which can stop people from discriminating can force people to discriminate. Why not just leave it to individuals to decide who they do and don’t want to associate with.

  • Doctor Whom||

    What happens if government determines that homosexuals are a significant societal problem and orders that they not be hired

    Which has actually happened.

  • DJF||

    Which is why government laws should not be used to either stop people associating or making them associate.

  • Rob||

    See Alan Turing's conviction for indecency.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    What happens is that Tony, schooled once again, will ignore your question.

  • Tony||

    That's fine for a society in which everyone, regardless of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation has full access to commerce in their society. If a government required discrimination against gays, then that would be a society in which antidiscrimination laws are even more necessary, wouldn't you say?

  • TANSTaaFL||

    "If a government required discrimination against gays, then that would be a society in which antidiscrimination laws are even more necessary

    Translation: When you give a corrupt cop a gun and he turns it on you, the solution is - GIVE HIM A BIGGER GUN!

  • ||

    It depends on the power of the individual(s) within that society. If the state enacts mandatory discrimination laws and everyone ignores them, then reason would suggest that enacting anti-discrimination laws would have a minimal effect.

    If the government mandates discrimination (or not) and;
    1. Everything is in the state.
    2. Nothing exists outside the state.
    3. Nothing within the state is allowed to stand against the state.
    Then (anti-)discrimination laws really gain some traction.

    Further, you assume equality is of paramount desirability and can be achieved by blanket mandate or through simplistic 'one-off' action (which race law for the past two-to-four centuries has kinda disproven). If I start a WNBA team of all transgendered men, is that discriminating against women or no? If I have an business staffed entirely by men, some of whom dress like women am I discriminating against women? What if some of them actually are women who used to be men?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Because children should be in school learning to be future contributors to an advanced economy

    This is a conclusion, not an argument.

    not fodder for factories in a third-world economy.

    70% of all child labor done today is in agriculture, not manufacturing. Would you like to revise your DERP?

    It's government's job to correct significant societal problems.

    Remember the good old days when it was the government's job to correct the societal problem of the mentally-ill homosexual? (Oscar Wilde says hello)

    How about the job of poor people reproducing too much? (Buck v. Bell)

  • wareagle||

    It's government's job to correct significant societal problems.
    --------------
    no, no it's not. It's govt's job to provide certain services and protect citizens' rights. Period.

  • Tony||

    You mean the societal problems the privileged classes care about but not any others.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, no - *you* mean the societal problems the privileged classes care about. That's been the central point of all you've posted here.

    Some people feel that considering a person's sexual orientation to be wrong when making hiring/firing/promotion/assignment decisions and those people have the *privilege* of access to lawmakers to get their pet issue taken care of.

  • Fluffy||

    The market itself was never up to the task of ridding society of these ills

    The fact that I don't want to hire you is not justly an actionable harm.

    Not unless it's also an actionable harm every time I want to sell you anything at all, and you decline.

  • ||

    ^^This x1000

  • prolefeed||

    The fact that I don't want to hire you is not justly an actionable harm.

    Not unless it's also an actionable harm every time I want to sell you anything at all, and you decline.

    To put it more to the point:

    The fact that you don't want to buy the labor services someone wants to sell you is exactly as much an actionable harm as that you don't want to buy the groceries a supermarket wants to sell you, or the electronic device someone else wants to sell you, or ...

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Another fantastic point that will be ignored by Tony

  • ||

    "The right to be an employer is not absolute."

    If the employee is a willing participant, then yes it is. Just because a government outlaws something does not preclude it from being a right.

  • Tony||

    It's funny how you guys can't even get one sentence in to defending absolutist natural rights without invoking a caveat. "If the employee is a willing participant" is a restriction on an employer's freedoms. Just because it's an obviously necessary and right one doesn't mean it doesn't prove what I said right.

  • ||

    "If the employee is a willing participant" is a restriction on an employer's freedoms."

    No it's not. Slavery is a restriction on the slave's freedoms. As always, you get it backwards.

  • Tony||

    And bans on slavery is a restriction on would-be slavers' freedoms. It's an important and obvious caveat to absolute rights, but it is a caveat nonetheless.

  • trshmnstr||

    Yes, if you run around with the moronic presumption that you have a natural right to everything you could possibly do then you're infringing on a slaver's rights. However, you're also infringing on the slave's right to be a slaver and the slave's right to keep the product of their labor. Your strawman falls over and looks very sad as you beat him mercilessly. Obviously, given that we aren't morons, we don't believe that you absolutely have the right to do anything you want. That's where the whole NAP thing comes from.

  • Tony||

    Yeah I know. So stop arguing that legitimate rights are "negative," natural, and absolute. No right is absolute. Not even the most basic rights you guys believe in.

  • Agammamon||

    "And bans on slavery is a restriction on would-be slavers' freedoms. It's an important and obvious caveat to absolute rights, but it is a caveat nonetheless."

    And you have as much grasp on what an 'absolute right' is and Natural Law as you do on the constitution.

  • Fluffy||

    "If the employee is a willing participant" is a restriction on an employer's freedoms.

    No it's not.

    It's definitional.

    An "employer" purchases labor from "employees".

    A purchase requires the seller's consent.

    If the relationship does not involve a voluntary purchase, you aren't talking about an employer and an employee. You're talking about something else. That's why we would use different nouns for those cases, like "lord" and "serf", or "master" and "slave".

  • Doctor Whom||

    Actually, the market was up to the task of imposing disincentives on discrimination. Government had to step in to correct that market failure by removing those disincentives or by just plain mandating discrimination. If I'm mistaken, please tell me the reasons for laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act and for Jim Crow laws.

  • Paul.||

    Unfortunately, Tony's right, but for all the wrong reasons. The government can force you to buy a product from a private third party.

    We're done here.

    There is no limiting principle. It's just the ethereal whims of legislators counting angels on the heads of pins.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And, so, the Stonewall's refusal to hire members of the Westboro Baptist Church is obviously religious discrimination.

  • lap83||

    Translation: The unskilled must be hampered from gaining skills so I can sleep peacefully at night knowing our children are pampered and unemployable, workplaces are pretty, and hiring quotas are met.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The sheep says, "BAAAAAAAAH."

  • ||

    Ring ding-a-ding ding dnger dinger ding!

    Oh, wait, wrong reference?

  • John||

    If you can consider gays a protected class, there conceptually is no limit to who you consider a protected class. The laws outlawing discrimination based upon race, religion and sex, whatever their merits, were based on a specific set of historic circumstances and problems that faced the country. I agree with Thomas Sowell that racial discrimination was starting to solve itself and would have improved without the federal government stepping in. But, I also understand, given how horrible the country's history was, especially with regard to blacks and the social problems that was creating, where people decided you just couldn't wait to solve the problem.

    But none of that applies to the situation with gays. Gays are not 12 percent of the population. We do not have huge gay ghettos where people are getting angry and alienated and starting to riot. The mass media and culture has completely accepted and celebrates gays and the gay lifestyle. Jason Collins is not Jackie Robinson.

    The support for this measure shows how people have totally forgotten that these sorts of laws have a cost. People think "well I like gays, of course people should have to hire them" never understanding that making it effectively a crime to discriminate creates a whole host of infringements on other people's rights and second order effects.

  • Tony||

    If there is no discrimination problem for gays, then the protection will have no practical effect. The only downside would be employers wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gays--a problem you claim has never existed. Yet it would establish that gays are not unworthy of the protections other minorities get. (By the way--you can't discriminate against white people or men either. These laws don't simply protect minorities, they protect people from discrimination based on the listed characteristics.)

    I'm not sure what other "second-order" effects you're worried about. The only thing that could possibly be effected is employers' ability to discriminate against gays.

  • PapayaSF||

    If there is no discrimination problem for gays, then the protection will have no practical effect.

    You forget the trial lawyers and their clients, seeking big settlements for little or nothing.

  • Fluffy||

    You could pass the portions of the law banning discrimination against gays and I would not notice.

    I'd object to it as a generalized injustice and a violation of the principle of freedom of association, but as a practical matter I'd never notice it.

    But here's the thing: the law also includes transvestites as a protected class. And transvestites, while amusing entertainment, are fucking ridiculous, and a law that says I can't discriminate against somebody who dresses up like a Benny Fucking Hill skit when hiring a corporate spokesman is absurd on its face.

    I don't hate you, transvestites. I just think you're clowns. And if it's utterly unbearable to you to wear appropriate clothing to the workplace, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. I don't dress up as a fucking dolphin or space alien when I go to work; I put on the clothes that are expected. You get to fucking do that too.

  • Tony||

    I'm gonna need a cite for that. As far as I know it includes transgendered persons, but not transvestites.

  • Agammamon||

    If you're physically male but identify as female and choose to wear women's clothing then you're a transvestite (as well as transgendered).

    You don't need a cite for that, its basic fucking logic.

  • Zeb||

    But there are people who identify as transvestites, but not transgender. So you are wrong, it doesn't protect transvestites except in that most trangendered people will dress as their preferred gender identity.
    What you are saying is akin to saying that the protection for gays also protects men who like to dress nicely, because most gay men like to dress nicely.

  • Agammamon||

    I'm not (completely) wrong.

    You are correct in that a (straight or gay) physical male who identifies as male (or the female equivalent) but likes to dress cross-gender won't get that /she simply claims to identify as the opposite gender (whether true or not - its not like there's a test to se if you're lying).

    On the other hand, a transgender who likes to dress cross-gender gets that protection. And based on Tony's logic, since gender preference is innate, it would be horribly unfair to prevent the non-transgendered from crossdressing.

    Maybe we need a law.

  • Paul.||

    but not transvestites.

    Why not?

  • Fluffy||

    All definitions of "transgender" I have found include people who "present" as the opposite sex, whether they have been hormonally or surgically altered or not.

  • PapayaSF||

    Exactly. Anyone who thinks the "anti-discrimination" aspect will cover transgenders but not transvestites should read some history. That line will be crossed quickly.

    And remember when Hubert Humphrey claimed the Civil Rights Act would never mean quotas? Wanna bet that if this passes, within a few years there will be a lawsuit charging that some company is discriminating, because fewer than X% of employees are gay/transgendered/transvestites/whatever?

  • Tony||

    Transvestitism is a sartorial choice (hence the etymology of the word). As far as I know government has never been in the habit of regulating private workplace attire.

  • PapayaSF||

    All someone has to do is claim is that it's an expression of sexual preference or gender identity. Do you really not know how this sort of thing works?

  • Tony||

    Well it's generally considered polite to take people at their word on such things. You think there will be a rash of people pretending to be transsexual so they get a little cushion in workplace security? I'm not sure the cost-benefit equation works out that way.

  • PapayaSF||

    No, I expect a rash of people filing absurd lawsuits to make money, the same way that the ADA has provided a living for the predatory disabled and their lawyers, who can extort restaurants because (e.g.) the mirrors in their bathrooms are 1/2 inch too high.

  • Tony||

    So is the solution to remove all facilitation for the disabled? Collective punishment for a few bad apples? If your answer is to present good-faith reforms to minimize abuse, I'm all with you.

  • Redmanfms||

    So is the solution to remove all facilitation for the disabled?

    Uh, no and that wasn't what was being argued you mendacious cunt.

    If your answer is to present good-faith reforms to minimize abuse, I'm all with you.

    How do you reform a system that by its very definition is going to facilitate extortion? By not allowing damage awards, and merely requiring compliance when suit is brought? Yeah, that'll never fucking happen and you wouldn't support it if it were ever seriously proposed.

  • ||

    And this is why one should only hire executive transvestites.

  • Agammamon||

    I think you're way off-base with the history of gay discrimination in our past. We never threw people in jail simply for being black. Sure, both in total numbers and as a percentage of our population, the intolerance exhibited towards homosexuality was pretty minor. However, the intolerance and violence directed against each individual was pretty great - easily equal to that received by any minority ethnic or religious group in this country.

    Post-slavery, the only other group I can think of that had as much hate and violence (especially government violence) directed at them are the early Mormons.

  • John||

    So what? We are passed that history. We passed the civil rights act in 1964 when blacks were being treated horribly in large parts of the country. To compare that situation to gays today is a insult to suffering of blacks.

    If things ever change and gays start getting treated like blacks did in 1964 come talk to me about shitting all over people's right of free association and freedom religion. Until then, no thanks.

  • sarcasmic||

    To compare that situation to gays today is a insult to suffering of blacks.

    I thought the same thing when those who wanted to redefine marriage compared their plight to that of blacks in the 60s.

  • Tony||

    Why don't you let gay people decide for themselves how much discrimination they face in society, since they're the ones actually living their lives? When minorities want white heterosexual men to adjudicate exactly how much privilege we have or don't have, we'll let you know.

  • Fluffy||

    Why don't you let gay people decide for themselves how much discrimination they face in society, since they're the ones actually living their lives?

    If you can't explain it in simple English that stands up to basic criticism, fuck you and your life experience.

  • Agammamon||

    But you're not doing that - you're jumping on the 'force everyone to do what I want' wagon.

    "When minorities want white heterosexual men to adjudicate exactly how much privilege we have or don't have, we'll let you know.

    OK, this has to be one of the silliest sentences I've read in a while. If you're white, no matter how 'progressive' your views, I don't think the minorities are going to consult you on whether or not to allow white men to adju . . . ya know, fuck it this is too stupid.

  • Paul.||

    Why don't you let gay people decide for themselves how much discrimination they face in society, since they're the ones actually living their lives?

    This may be the least self-aware statement in this history time.

    When minorities want white heterosexual men to adjudicate exactly how much privilege we have or don't have, we'll let you know.

    Isn't that exactly what you want? You demand a society where white heterosexual men grant permission for every action, then you cry 'discrimination' because somewhere, someone didn't get hired by a bigot.

  • DJF||

    So now you want “privileges”.

  • Tony||

    Not at all. No amount of legislation will tip the scale to making minorities more privileged than heterosexual white men any time soon.

  • Agammamon||

    When minorities want white heterosexual men to adjudicate exactly how much privilege we have or don't have, we'll let you know.,/blockquote

    Oh, while I'm at it - minorities don't get to decide how much privilege white men have - THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF PRIVILEGE.
  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Why don't you let gay people decide for themselves how much discrimination they face in society, since they're the ones actually living their lives?"

    Because, you statist, fuckwad, piece of shit, the entire basis for this discussion is that some gay people want to have someone point a gun in my face and compel me to hire them on the basis of said claims of discrimination. If gay people want to be the sole arbiters of how much discrimination they face, they can perfectly well be the only people governed by this law.

  • trshmnstr||

    ^^This

  • Tony||

    If we're going to use the gun metaphor, then I could counter by saying you want to point a gun at my face and compel me to live in a society in which some irrelevant biological characteristic of mine should be significantly determinative of my ability to participate and succeed in the marketplace.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, because the money you're trying to get from a prospective employer isn't "society's". It's his.

    And, trust me, if you ever decided you didn't want to live in "a society in which some irrelevant biological characteristic....blah blah blah", I'd be more than happy to take up a collection to buy you a one-way ticket to wherever your little heart desires.

  • Tony||

    He didn't build that.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Also, I should add, you're presuming that there is, in fact, a siginificant impediment to your ability to participate and succeed in the marketplace. And you turn around and say you should be the only person with a say in that assessment. Self-dealing bullshit from a statist, fuckwad, piece of shit.

  • PapayaSF||

    Why don't you let white/male/straight/Christian people decide for themselves how much discrimination they face in society, since they're the ones actually living their lives?

  • Tony||

    They are perfectly welcome to champion policies that redress those problems.

  • Agammamon||

    1. I'm not saying that this law is good or needed - I don't think it is.

    2. I am saying that you can't use how 'nice' we are to homosexuals *today* as justification for not passing this law considering that less than a generation ago they were pretty heavily fucked with *and* prior to that could expect a lot more violence against them (if they were out) than the average minority in this country.

    If they weren't herded into ghettos its only because gays were pretty damn good at blending in with straight society.

  • John||

    I am saying that you can't use how 'nice' we are to homosexuals *today* as justification for not passing this law

    And that is completely wrong. Why are you asking me to support a policy that pisses all over people's freedom of association and religion in order to solve a problem that either doesn't exist or if it does is very small?

    The current treatment of gays is the entire question. If you can't show me gays really are suffering in large numbers and in significant ways, this law doesn't even deserve consideration. And even if you can show that, you then have to show me that harm is greater than the harm to other people's freedom this law would create.

  • Agammamon||

    No, no, no. I'm not asking you to support this - I'm saying that you're impression that gays have had it easy compared to other minorities is wrong.

    That's it, nothing else.

    Other than that, I agree with you - I don't think this law is needed and that it will do more harm than good.

  • ||

    I'm saying that you're impression that gays have had it easy compared to other minorities is wrong.

    I love the "My suffering can beat up your suffering" game.

  • ||

    And even if you can show that, you then have to show me that harm is greater than the harm to other people's freedom this law would create.

    Protip: You can't. Those are subjective value judgments. And if you don't think liberty wins that value judgment contest, you're an asshole.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "I am saying that you can't use how 'nice' we are to homosexuals *today* as justification for not passing this law..."

    That only makes sense if the justification for the law is payback. For the law to be justified today, you'd have to show that gays are massively discriminated against today. Otherwise, there's no currently existing injustice to remedy.

  • Mike M.||

    If you can consider gays a protected class, there conceptually is no limit to who you consider a protected class.

    Heterosexual white men can never be a protected class, conceptually or otherwise, because heterosexual white men are all evil oppressors. Even poor and working class heterosexual white men with no authority, because they're all racists and whatnot.

    Everyone else of course is fair game.

  • Tony||

    If you are not hired because you are a white man, you are protected by the law (but not [yet] if you are not hired because you are a heterosexual).

  • Zeb||

    I still don't see why anyone would want to be hired by someone so bigoted that they won't even employ someone who is gay/straight/black/whatever.

  • Tony||

    It takes discrimination off the table. Gays are not inhibited relative to other groups in the job market, and employers might just learn to stop being bigots if they're not allowed to exclude gays from their workforce.

  • DJF||

    What is wrong with being bigoted?

    Are homosexuals who call heterosexuals ‘breeders’ bigoted?

  • Tony||

    What is wrong with being bigoted?

    You don't get invited to the best dinner parties.

    Are homosexuals who call heterosexuals ‘breeders’ bigoted?

    Not a term I use, but I'm quite bigoted against heterosexuals. I think they're silly, strange people with baffling rituals. I think straight men engage in a head-spinning amount of deception in order to get their dicks wet, and I think straight women are emotional basketcases. In my personal life I choose not to associate with straights as much as humanly possible. But as much of a bigot as I am, I would still support the laws that protect them from discrimination in hiring.

  • DJF||

    """You don't get invited to the best dinner parties.""'

    Obviously we need laws against such discrimination. /s

  • Zeb||

    Suppose I went and applied for a job at a gay oriented business of some sort, and the proprietors would, for whatever reason, prefer to have an all gay staff. If I am going to face hostility in that job because I am straight, I don't want that job and I don't want to waste my time (or theirs) by starting the job only to find out that I am not really wanted there.
    Unless you are more interested in a lawsuit than a job, I don't see how the law is going to make things much better. Particularly since employment discrimination against gays doesn't seem to be a huge problem.

  • Tony||

    The good thing about this sort of law is that if there is no problem, then it creates no "harm." If you're right that gays don't face extra discrimination, then we're arguing about something of absolutely no substance.

    Of course the fact that gay people can't even practice the fundamental right of getting married in most jurisdictions suggests that they aren't exactly treated as full members of society yet.

  • Zeb||

    But there are problems. Now anyone who gets fired has another venue for a lawsuit for unfair dismissal. This will not only mean more frivolous lawsuits, but will also discourage employers from hiring gay people in the first place for fear that if they ever do fire them for good cause, they will get sued. There is always a down side to rules like this. Even putting aside the principled objection on freedom of information grounds, you have to look at the deeper consequences.

  • Tony||

    Consequences which presumably already exist to an overwhelmingly larger degree with respect to race, sex, and religion. We can't treat gays equally because there might be a couple more lawsuits on top of all the other ones that are supposedly stifling business?

    To me the libertarian position should be people are free to sue for whatever they want. This "frivolous lawsuit" bullshit is propaganda from the corporate welfare end of the Republican party, and doesn't have anything to do with libertarian principles as far as I'm aware.

  • Mike M.||

    You can't be serious Krugscum.

  • Paul.||

    If you are not hired because you are a white man, you are protected by the law (but not [yet] if you are not hired because you are a heterosexual).

    So gay organizations will have to hire straight people even though the position might benefit from the shared experience of being gay?

  • Tony||

    They would not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation in hiring, as far as I know.

  • db||

    Freedom of association, like criticism of government agencies, is valued only by far right homophobes such as libertarians and the founders of the US.

  • ||

    What people don't realize, I think, is that such laws just make employers (who might otherwise not have given a shit about sexual orientation) now paranoid about even interviewing someone who might be gay. I watched a similar thing play out once when I was interviewing for my replacement at a company I was leaving. I interviewed a woman who I thought was the best choice for replacing me, and then she told the IT manager that she was pregnant. The bosses almost had heart attacks and went insane trying to find a way to not hire her, because CT law said that not hiring her was discrimination, but they didn't want an employee who was going to go on a paid six month vacation in a few months. They were obsessed with not hiring her now.

    Laws like this will make gays hot potatoes in terms of hiring (if the hiring company has any inkling of their orientation). From what I have seen, all anti-discrimination law in hiring does is make people not even consider hiring someone who might be from a protected class, which certainly doesn't help those people at all.

    As always, with TEAM BLUE, it's about words. Results? Those don't matter at all.

  • PapayaSF||

    Very true. Happens with blacks already, not because employers are racists, but because they fear the accusation.

  • John||

    Yes. There are lots of second order effects to these laws. And since you can't tell if someone is gay right off like you can if they are black, the effects you describe would be even worse.

    And when gays who are just lousy employees or bad people start abusing these laws, that is going to help gays become more accepted in society how exactly?

  • Zeb||

    But the people pushing the laws have good intentions, so if you don't vote for it you are a hateful bigot. Even though the consequences may actually make the situation worse.

  • R C Dean||

    No kidding. I have two equally qualified candidates for a job. One of them presents a significantly higher risk of litigation/prosecution.

    Which do I hire? Is this even a hard question?

  • lap83||

    Your example shows that the results do matter, but they actually secretly want the opposite results in order to keep themselves relevant. If discrimination went away, what would become of the community organizers? You don't expect them to get real jobs, do you?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    but they didn't want an employee who was going to go on a paid six month vacation in a few months.

    That whole business efficiency and profitability thing is just a scam to allow the white patriarchy to oppress teh womyns. And teh gheys.

  • sarcasmic||

    The fallacy of switching the burden of proof, put into legislation.

    "Prove that you didn't hire my client because he's homosexual! Prove it!"

    No wonder Tony loves this shit. He just gags on fallacies.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I don't think there's much of a gag reflex when it comes to Choney and fallacies.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't think Tony has ever gagged on anything TEAM SLAVER has, erm, presented to him.

  • ||

    He just gags on fallacies.

    Fallacies... phalluses... icwutudidthar

  • Tony||

    I would of course only support laws that place the burden of proof on the accuser.

  • Eric||

    What I don't get is why have teh gays decided to include transgendered people in thier fight? I can hold my nose and accept this law on the grounds that it is a feel good attempt to provide equality for a disenfranchised minority (gay people). But what the fuck does being gender confused have to do with this. I'm sorry, but nobody should be forced to hire a transvestite at thier place of work. Especially when it may be a school or day care center. Maybe someday society will be ready to take this leap, but it is not today.

  • Tony||

    You guys need to learn the difference between transgendered people and transvestites.

  • Skerpt||

    Tony is right.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    A person who thinks they are the opposite sex versus someone who likes to pretend to be the opposite sex.

  • Tony||

    No. A transvestite is simply someone who dresses in the traditional clothing of the opposite sex. It's a completely different thing from being transsexual.

  • R C Dean||

    So now we are hanging an entire anti-discrimination regime, comparable to the civil rights movement, on such First World niceties as the distinction between transvestiites, transsexuals, and transgendered people?

    Why do I suspect the LGBT community itself gets into hair-pulling hissy fits over the "proper" usage of these precious terms?

  • Agammamon||

    Because they do. My god, they do. There's an internecine fight over the initials that come *after* the LGBT.

    LGBTI
    LGBTIH
    GLTB
    LGBTIHCU, *another* T for transsexual, another T for 'tow spirit', an A for 'straight allies', an A for 'asexual, a P for 'pansexual, an H for 'HIV *affected* (not *infected*), an O for 'Other'.

    And then there's SGL to differentiate black homosexuals from the 'white-dominated' LGBT movement

    FABGLITTER (I like this one, camp and catchy)
    QUILTBAG
    and onandonandonandon

  • DanD||

    another T for 'tow spirit'

    Wha?!?!?!

  • Agammamon||

    Ah, that should be 'two spirit'.

  • DanD||

    It's gotten so ridiculous that I didn't realize it was a typo O_o

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dean, you're just some cisgendered bigot who is blind to the complexities of gender and sex.

    This is why every university needs a fully-funded Queer Studies department.

  • Eric||

    Terminology difference really. Transgender is not about physiology but rather self-identification. Thus, Bradley Manning would qualify as transgendered, even though he is 100% physiologically male. Most of us would call him a transvestite, but I guess that's not PC anymore.

  • Rhywun||

    Nor accurate. There is a big difference - see Ed Wood, for example.

  • ||

    Eddie Izzard would be a transvestite. He identifies as male, but likes wearing women's clothes.

    Bradley Manning would be transgendered because he identifies as female and is making an effort to make his exterior match his interior.

  • Eric||

    I understand the distinction. But think that it's splitting hairs.

  • ||

    I don't think it's a very fine distinction. A transvestite is donning a costume for whatever reason and someone who is transgendered sees their default gender expression as the costume and is trying to make their exterior match their interior.

    If you really want to split the hair fine talk about this with a sociology of gender professor (I don't recommend it [seriously]).

  • R C Dean||

    And one is going to qualify for full-on government privilege, and the other isn't? Based on their subjectivity about their gender as the reason for wearing the costume?

    If this doesn't all sound totally batshit nuts to you as the basis for legal rights and penalties, then I just don't even . . . .

  • ||

    Please point to where I said that any of this was deserving of "full-on government privilege."

    My point is that they're separate things, not that one or the other should qualify for protection.

  • R C Dean||

    I get that jesse. I was being more rhetorical-like, as in the supporters of this bill apparently are batshit nuts to hang a major legal distinction on the [claimed] reason someone wears women's clothes.

  • Agammamon||

    I think you can be transgendered *and* a transvestite. But what the hell do I know - I'm just a straight male who identifies as male - cisgender privilege means my view and knowledge have no value here.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Isn't is basically square versus rectangle?

  • ||

    making an effort to make his exterior match his interior

    But the real question is does his carpet match the drapes?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Says the guy who thinks you need maternity coverage in the event you are hit by a bus.

  • GILMORE||

    So now that we appreciate the difference, how many police officers dressed-as-men who are actually women will rectify the police departments' discriminatory practices?

  • Agammamon||

    And think of the poor lumberjacks.

  • Skerpt||

    I do think that if I were in second grade and on my first day of school I walked into a classroom to find a hairy man wearing high heels, a dress, and bright red lipstick then I would be a little creeped out or at any rate distracted. You also have to wonder about a gay man in the high school gym locker room with a bunch of half naked 17/18 year old young men. I think this is why workplace discrimination complaints go through some type of court.

  • ||

    You do realize that gay men are not pedophiles, right? They like physically mature men, just like straight dudes like physically mature women. You realize that, right? Because the old "all gay men are pedophiles" shit is really moronic.

  • Tonio||

    Dude, it's most likely a drive-by.

  • ||

    Yeah, I know, it just needs to be said occasionally.

  • Rhywun||

    Of course 17/18 year old young men ARE physically mature. Just sayin'.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, except that if I found myself in a locker-room with half naked 17 year old girls I'd still be a bit distracted.

  • ||

    You do realize that gay men are not pedophiles, right? They like physically mature men...

    You do realize that just because you can stay on your parents health plan until you're 26, doesn't mean you aren't "physically mature" in your late teens, right? You realize that?

  • R C Dean||

    You do realize that gay men are not pedophiles, right

    Slow down there, General Ization.

    Most gay men aren't pedophiles, but some certainly are.

    Just being pedantic, is all.

    Carry on.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's possible you have a consistent position... assuming that you are fine with a straight adult male being in the locker room with 17/18 year old girls.

  • Tony||

    I thought libertarians tended to err on the side of humans being angels. Now every adult male is suspect of being a lecher?

    Being an adult male I must say that is a completely legitimate concern.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, you lost me at "gender confused."

  • Skerpt||

    People comparing LBGT (Q..R...Y? I forget how many letters they've added to that) to Nazis is ABSURD. The Nazis were committing genocide. Gay people are not trying to ethnically cleanse the place. This is like saying "I don't want to associate with n**gers therefore I chose not to hire them based on my freedoms of association." That is not healthy for society. There is a reason blacks have been granted equal rights. I don't believe that by extending those rights to LGBTQXC9 people you are causing any harm. I also hate how someone called Libertarians homophobic. Shit like this scares me. I thought I found a political party that really sunk in with me that I could support and look forward to. Then they go and hate on gay people. Why are you looking for a reason to make equal rights subject to interpretation of laws. ITS EQUAL RIGHTS... It should just come standard.

  • sarcasmic||

    Since when was it a basic human right to force yourself onto someone who, for whatever personal reason, does not want to associate themselves with you?

    That turns the concept of freedom of association onto its head.

  • Tony||

    Since it was a reality that, based on how you were born, you were granted varying degrees of access to participation in society and the workforce. Once that problem no longer exists, then the freedom to associate can become a little more liberal.

  • sarcasmic||

    So you are saying that freedom of association means forcing yourself onto people who have no desire to associate themselves with you?

    Just want to be clear that freedom is force, so I can add that to my list of your stupidities.

  • GILMORE||

    This is why we need more Heavy Metal in gay nightclubs.

  • sarcasmic||

    It doesn't work that way. It's OK for gays to discriminate. It's only when they are discriminated against that it is bad.

    You're thinking this is based upon principles or something that apply both ways. You should know better than that.

  • ||

    Next time you're in NOLA check out Siberia. It's a mixed crowd and a fun night out. If you can go during Pornopticon it's even better.

  • GILMORE||

    GAY METAL saw its apotheosis @ Don Hill's weekly hardrock nights. Which I think was only slightly less gay than Thursday. But rock out with their cocks out, they did.

    Good times

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Yvf3kDzdA

  • Tony||

    I'm saying that freedom of association doesn't extend to protecting employers' discriminatory hiring practices. It's not the end of the fucking world, it's just a correction for a flaw in the market known as bigotry.

  • sarcasmic||

    Being that an employer is a purchaser of labor, I'll correct that sentence for you.

    I'm saying that freedom of association doesn't extend to protecting employers' purchaser's discriminatory hiring purchasing practices.

    Let's say I choose not to buy Ben and Jerry's because I don't like that they are gay friendly. By your same "logic" shouldn't they be able to sue me?

  • Tony||

    No. People, with respect to the law, are somewhat different from pints of ice cream.

  • Fluffy||

    People, with respect to the law, are somewhat different from pints of ice cream.

    You think that's clever, but it's BY FAR the most asinine and unsupported element of the legal argument here.

    The distinction between buying a finished product (say, a gallon of ice cream) and paying someone to produce that product (say, by coming over to my house to make me ice cream) is a mere administrative and procedural detail, and in no way alters the relationship between buyer and seller in kind.

    "Oh, no, Fluffy! Being an employee is holy. We have to think about the employee's dignity. It's SO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when you pay someone by W-2 instead of by 1099! You have UTTERLY DIFFERENT paternalistic responsibilities to people who lack the fucking initiative to work for themselves!"

  • Tony||

    If you see employees as market goods only--but why then are employees afforded all these special privileges and freedoms your entire politics exists to defend?

  • Fluffy||

    If you see employees as market goods only--but why then are employees afforded all these special privileges and freedoms your entire politics exists to defend?

    To me, the person who sells me landscaping services for a single occasion (and says "I have this landscaping company over here") is not doing anything fundamentally different from the person who wants to be hired as my gardener.

    The distinction is entirely administrative. It is a convenience for us to negotiate regular hours, in the second case. It doesn't actually change our relationship.

    All work is piece work, in the end. And the sale of finished goods is just piece work where the seller invested in materials as well.

    The only reason, and I mean the only reason, that people allow themselves to fall for the illusion that there's a different relationship in play is because so-called "employees" think they deserve a host of special privileges that the guy who sells me coffee in the morning doesn't get - and there's a lot of people like that, and they vote.

    You'd be hard pressed to describe any in-kind difference to me that I couldn't easily explode.

  • Tony||

    But that's only because you either accept all the privileges and rights that exist for employers as a given, or you pretend they don't exist.

    Being able to make money in peace is the product of significant social investment. And we've bent over backward to ensure an exploitable environment exists for the people at the top. But since most people are being hired rather than doing the hiring, you'd think it would be moral and practical to consider that workers might deserve some rights too.

  • Fluffy||

    But since most people are being hired rather than doing the hiring, you'd think it would be moral and practical to consider that workers might deserve some rights too.

    The more relevant factor to consider is the role everyone in the economy plays as a purchaser.

    You're just as much of a purchaser as anyone who purchases labor. You make hundreds - thousands - of purchasing decisions every year.

    And when you make those decisions, you make them on the basis of what's important to you.

    If every last one of those purchasing decisions was a potential disparate impact lawsuit from someone you never even heard of, you would find the situation intolerable.

    And out of all the purchasing decisions made by all the purchasers in the US, you want to exclude one of them from the zone of discretion that exists to give you piece of mind that people can't sue you for your own purchasing decisions. One. The one where purchasers are buying what you're selling.

    So it seems to me that the real distinction here is "Tony sells his labor, and not that other stuff, so labor is holy, and that other stuff is mere commodities." And that's fucking rank self-serving tripe disguising itself as a moral distinction.

  • Tony||

    The moral distinction is that labor is done by human beings who I'm sure you agree deserve special treatment above and beyond tchotchkes. Most human beings have to sell their labor in order to live. If that's the environment people have to live in, then it's legitimate to provide for labor-related rights that limit the prevalence of unfairness in the system. Nobody's saying minorities have to be hired regardless of their abilities--just that employers can't irrationally exclude them because of their minority status. I also can't buy poisoned food, no matter how much I might want to. I'm ok with that.

  • R C Dean||

    Being able to make money in peace is the product of significant social investment.

    "That money, you didn't earn that."

  • Agammamon||

    If you see employees as market goods only--but why then are employees afforded all these special privileges and freedoms your entire politics exists to defend?

    What special privileges? Freedom of association? The exact same privilege the potential employee has?

  • sarcasmic||

    No. People, with respect to the law, are somewhat different from pints of ice cream.

    Fuck the law legislated diktat for a moment.

    In principle, Tony, it's the exact same thing.

    It's the government setting conditions on what decisions a purchaser may or may not make when making a purchase.

    Oh, shit. For a moment I mistook you for someone who has the cognitive ability to logically apply principles in an abstract way. I'm sorry. I sincerely apologize. I forgot you are functionally retarded.

  • ||

    I forgot you are functionally retarded.

    That's a low blow to functional retards.

  • Agammamon||

    With respect to the law - in both cases you're purchasing something.

    Why is it OK in one case but not the other?

  • trshmnstr||

    Can you just finally do your own dirty work? You rely on others to hold the gun to people's heads.t Why don't you just go yourself, hold the gun to hiring managers' heads and tell them who to hire? How about you go door to door and collect the money for the new regulatory programs made to enforce this?

    It sounds so nice and clean when you don't have to do anything but post fascist drivel on a message board. I bet you wouldn't even make it one day face to face with the people you would so willfully oppress.

  • GILMORE||

    "Tony|11.4.13 @ 12:42PM|#

    I'm saying that freedom of association doesn't extend to protecting employers' discriminatory hiring practices"

    OK

    So I run a gay strip club catering to black men

    How many (white, arab, Chinese, and Mexican) heterosexual women-strippers do I have to hire before its "cool" by your arbitrary standards there, Gay Tony?

  • GILMORE||

    Gay Tony??COME ON.... CAN I HAVE 100% MALE BLACK GAY STRIPPERS OR NOT?!?

  • Tony||

    Nope.

  • GILMORE||

    So I *can't* run a gay-black strip club without White Hetero Female strippers? Great.

    And I suppose YOU are planning to give my customers their $10 back?

  • Tony||

    Frankly Gilmore I don't give a fuck. Godspeed on your new endeavor.

  • GILMORE||

    Racist

  • DJF||

    “”””Once that problem no longer exists, then the freedom to associate can become a little more liberal.”’’

    Once you force everyone to do what you want them to do, then maybe if they keep on doing what you want then we can put the SWAT back into their barracks. But if they step out of line then its a club against their heads

  • Doctor Whom||

    Since it was a reality that, based on how you were born, you were granted varying degrees of access to participation in society and the workforce.

    Just because a problem exists, it does not follow that government coercion is the solution. In fact, as several people have pointed out, government coercion is part of the problem, gets in the way of solutions, and in fact can aggravate the problem.

  • Tony||

    Just because a problem exists, it does not follow that government coercion is the solution.

    True!

    In fact, as several people have pointed out, government coercion is part of the problem, gets in the way of solutions, and in fact can aggravate the problem.

    They haven't pointed it out convincingly. Has there ever been a case of legitimate harm befalling an employer because he wasn't allowed to consider race as a factor in hiring? Not being allowed to practice open bigotry is someone less of a harm than not being allowed to work because of how you were born. But politics is sometimes about such moral dilemmas.

  • Agammamon||

    How about harm befalling an employer because he is *forced* to consider race?

    Think of all the companies Jesse Jackson has shaken down because of the racial make-up of their executive suite.

  • Fluffy||

    Not being allowed to practice open bigotry is someone less of a harm than not being allowed to work because of how you were born.

    It's infinitely more of a harm, since 1 divided by 0 is infinity, and the latter is not a harm.

    To suffer a harm, you have to be denied something to which you had an existing right.

    "Freedom of association" in an economic context boils down to my property right. I have property - money. I want to give that property to person X. You walk up and scream that you are going to force me to give it to person Y instead. You have taken away my property right. That is a harm - you are denying me something to which I had an existing right.

    Person Y has no existing right to my property. That's what makes it MY property. Therefore, he can't be said to suffer a "harm" if I don't give him my property.

    That makes my harm score 1, and his 0.

    My harm is infinitely more than his.

  • Tony||

    It's kind of ironic that as a libertarian you definitely treat human beings as a class of being deserving more consideration with respect to rights than animals, objects, or numbers, yet when convenient you treat human beings as mere market commodities.

  • Fluffy||

    It's kind of ironic that as a libertarian you definitely treat human beings as a class of being deserving more consideration with respect to rights than animals, objects, or numbers, yet when convenient you treat human beings as mere market commodities.

    Their labor is just that.

    I'm not buying the human, Tony.

    I'm buying "do some set of tasks for a few hours".

    Explain to me the holy distinction that makes it radically different for me to hire a man as my in-house counsel, and pay a law firm a retainer or a fee to represent me in litigation.

    Be specific. I don't want to hear "Waaaaa! You can't treat human beings as commodities!" I want to hear the actual moral difference. Where does it reside? What's morally different about the two cases?

  • Tony||

    I don't think there is any moral distinction, but neither of those choices involves abusing workers. Truly worker protections that have been gained (and then largely lost again) are a pittance compared to the cathedral of privileges society has set up in worship of the bountiful value of the businessman--you just don't see those because it's not liberals who've gotten those accomplished.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, you statist, fuckwad, piece of shit, we treat them as grown adults capable of making their own decisions.

  • R C Dean||

    Once that problem no longer exists,

    I'm trying to decide if this is the proggy version of the New Soviet Man, or the proggy version of Stalin's quip "No people, no problem."

  • Agammamon||

    Ah, I guess this is justification enough for the forced redistribution of wealth also.

  • DJF||

    So you think that libertarians should be in favor of using government to make everyone “equal”.

  • Fluffy||

    Everyone possesses an equal right to compel me to purchase their labor:

    None at all.

    All purchases of labor made by me are made utterly at my whim, based on standards I make up, or no standard at all. Not only do you possess no legitimate power to force me to use a particular standard, you also possess no legitimate power to even ASK ME what my standard is or what its basis is.

    If I like strawberry ice cream and buy strawberry ice cream, nobody has any moral authority to question that or force me to do otherwise.

    Labor is no different from any other item available for purchase.

  • Tony||

    People are forced to participate in the capitalist economy in order to survive. They are forced to work in your scheme. There are alternatives I'm sure we could try out. But this is your favored form of economy. So if people are systematically disadvantaged in this system, it's a flaw in it that serves to reinforce the privileges and disadvantages of certain classes. That is a bad, inefficient, and unjust outcome that serves to undermine the credibility of the system.

    You are free to believe that maximal association rights for employers are more worthy of protection than the right of people not to be discriminated against, of course, but it's not like the choice is morally impregnable. You're just a libertarian: you exist to serve the interests of the privileged over those of the underprivileged. It's what you do.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, no. No-one is *forced* to participate in the capitalist economy. Its that whole 'market' thing, especially the 'free' part meaning that everyone who participates has *chosen* to. However, no-one is stopping you from starting up your own little communist commune. Its just that no-one outside the commune is going to give your dirty hippies stuff for free, the hippies need to provide some value in return. And no, being dirty hippies is not, in and of itself, valuable to the vast majority of the human race.

    And we've tried other systems. They tend to kill people on a large scale.

  • sarcasmic||

    If there is such a glut of underprivileged people out there that are left in the lurch thanks to hateful libertarian policies, then isn't this an opportunity for some enlightened person such as yourself?

    Go out there and start a business that only hires gay people! You'll make a fortune!

  • DJF||

    ””’People are forced to participate in the capitalist economy in order to survive””’

    No they don’t, you can set up your own socialist or other system on your own land. You do have to follow the governments laws but that is not capitalist economy. Set up your own commune or create your own system.

    But don’t use force to create it or the government will crack your head since the government says only they can use force

  • trshmnstr||

    "People are forced to participate in the capitalist economy in order to survive."

    Nope. You are more than able to take yourself and your 10 best friends, start a commune, and never make or spend a single dollar again. The only push to capitalism you would get would be from government trying to get you to pay property taxes.

  • DJF||

    And labor laws, no having your underage children help pick the crop or chop firewood or adults working too many hours

    And environmental laws, no septic system without a permit and inspection

    And building codes, no unauthorized building or use of unauthorized labor or materials

    And zoning laws

    etc etc, but that is all from the government not the evil capitalists

  • Fluffy||

    Every last thing you just said applies every bit as much to the people who make products and provide services as they do to the fucking donkeys who think of themselves as perpetual employees.

    The guys who work for accounting partnerships, the guys who operate landscaping companies, the guys who make artisanal mayonnaise - they all have to participate in the capitalist economy in order to survive.

    So on the day when every last person offering any product or service for sale anywhere in the nation is able to sue you if you don't buy it (and force you to justify your lack of purchase, and the disparate impact of your lack of purchases) then you can come back to me and talk to me about the justice of antidiscrimination law.

  • GILMORE||

    So, what you're saying is that JEZEBEL needs to have more men on their editorial board, and BET needs to show more country music.

    I get it.

  • Skerpt||

    JEZEBEL may hire women over men because it qualifies them for the position more. They are selecting the most qualified people. But what if they were lesbians? (Wouldn't they know more about women anyway...) If a straight man and a gay man are both apply for the same mechanic job then their sexual orientation does not have an effect on their qualifications. Not to mention you are comparing gender here and not sexuality.
    BET does not need to show more country music because they are allowed to chose their format. Not to mention comparing country music to people is the most absurd argument I have seen on this thread. No one is talking about employing a song here.

  • GILMORE||

    I resent you suggesting that my penis and 3 day beard makes me less qualified in being an ardent post-modern feminist psychobabble spewing graduate student who is VERY upset about some shit that you #@*($_@#$ men just don't understand because of the rampant rape culture embedded in the very discourses you imply.

    I went to fucking WESLEYAN bitch!!! HOW DARE YOU THINK SOME CUNT FROM TUFTS IS BETTER THAN ME!@!!!!

  • trshmnstr||

    "JEZEBEL may hire women over men because it qualifies them for the position more. "

    How? Because men can't be feminists? What if I think that straight white men are more qualified for positions in my company because they're less likely to file an employment suit against me? What about if I hire only asians because they're statistically smarter than everybody else? What if I don't hire women because I don't want to pay for maternity leave? What if (like what i experienced in my youth) the local ice cream stand doesn't hire males because "they're just harder to control"?

    How about we let everybody who starts a business hire as they please, and let consumers decide whether or not they will patronize that business?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    What if (like what i experienced in my youth) the local ice cream stand doesn't hire males because "they're just harder to control"?

    I was told this when I tried to get a job at the nearby snackbar one summer. I then went and got a job at the grocery store. I guess I should have sued instead.

  • Numeromancer||

    If a straight man and a gay man are both apply for the same mechanic job then their sexual orientation does not have an effect on their qualifications.

    “I want you to make a car a serious pussy magnet.”

    There. Now it's relevant.

  • Numeromancer||

    ...a car my car...

  • Eric||

    I think the difference that you're looking for is in the distinction between positive vs negative rights.

    Libertarians are generally against entitlements (positive rights). These require force to be used on another person for the rights to be excercised.

    Negative rights would be pure liberties which require no force to be used on anyone to achieve.

    Most of the libertarians on this sight absolutely do not hate gays, nor condone discrimination against them. But they hold a principled stance against forcing others to associate with them (or anyone for that matter). This is the essence of liberty and it's not always pretty, feel-good, or popular.

    On the other hand, what you see in the Commentariate of this site is often the Tea-Party variety of Libertarian. They do hate gays and use libertarian sounding language to justify thier prejudice. They'll go away when Team Red wins the presidency.

  • GILMORE||

    "On the other hand, what you see in the Commentariate of this site is often the Tea-Party variety of Libertarian"

    1) WTF is the commentarissimo thing? is that the Cabal of ubercommenters who control the chips in our heads? herp? Does that by definition make you one of them...cause.... you're *here*...ergo, you teh teas party?

    2) please to cite examples of this tea partying gayhate prejudice pleases. Because last I checked we were crazy gay up in here.

  • Eric||

    Oh. I've no doubt that the TP is crazy gay...I'm sure after church on Sunday they fill the bathhouses, chatrooms, and any other anonymous venue they can find. And then go home and stoically have sex with their wives to make God happy...while dying inside just a little bit more each day.

  • GILMORE||

    YOU FAIL

    Look fagbag, the elementary-school rhetorical bullshit of going "I know you are so nyah nyah nyah" isn't really making you out to be the intellectual champ here.

    Please to cite examples of ANYTHING byt the "commentariate" that suggests that the average H&R reader/commenter is somehow part of some lockstep-socon "Tea Party" dogmatism which hates teh gaze and just use lots of "Fake" libertarian sounding words... blah blah blah.

    I assert you are a lying liar of a douchebag and you can't come to our fun gay parties anymore because you're fucking LAME.

  • Eric||

    Good Christ Gilmore. It's not like I stole your Minuteman costume and gave it to Marcus Bachmann for fucks sake.

    My comment was general, and I really don't have the time to collect samples of the conservative bullshit spewed by many here.

  • GILMORE||

    You had time to make stupid, baseless claims. I'd hope you have equal time to substantiate them.

    And FWIW, I wear a Lone Ranger costume. Chaps, no undies. And you love it.

  • Agammamon||

    No dude, its anal sex and refreshments.

    Don't you keep up with this stuff, I mean the gay is out in the open now - they probably have a page on Wikipedia listing their plan to take over the world.

  • SugarFree||

    Because last I checked we were crazy gay up in here.

    Damn straight!

  • entropy||

    They'll go away when Team Red wins the presidency.

    Oh I don't think so. That's what the GOP thinks but we shall see. Plenty of them have demonstrated ample loathing of Team Red.

  • GILMORE||

    WE ARE THE COSMOTARIAN GAY ROBOT ARMY OF MISESIAN SQUISHES

    EVEN GAYS THINK WE'RE A LITTLE TOO GAY

  • ||

    EVEN GAYS THINK WE'RE A LITTLE TOO GAY

    Only Epi.

  • Agammamon||

    They say we sneeze glitter.

  • Swiss Servator, Burn a Böögg||

    "On the other hand, what you see in the Commentariate of this site is often the Tea-Party variety of Libertarian. They do hate gays and use libertarian sounding language to justify thier prejudice. They'll go away when Team Red wins the presidency."

    Assertion only, assumes facts not in evidence.

    You need to learn the difference between principles and principals.

  • Eric||

    Pedantry is the last vestage of someone with no ideas Swiss.

  • Agammamon||

    Spellcheck is the *first* refuge of the knowledgeable commenter.

  • trshmnstr||

    On the other hand, what you see in the Commentariate of this site is often the Tea-Party variety of Libertarian. They do hate gays and use libertarian sounding language to justify thier prejudice. They'll go away when Team Red wins the presidency.

    The language of the statist on full display here.

    "In general, our enemy is a reasonable people. However, there is an evil lurking inside them. Those extremist teathuglicans have infiltrated the otherwise reasonable . They are full of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. They don't even check their privilege! They're around only because it's politically expedient to hate a black president, and will be gone after then next election cycle."

  • trshmnstr||

    stupid html parsing gets me again.

    "infiltrated the otherwise reasonable {insert political movement here}"

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, we all have equal rights, one of those rights is freedom of association - and just like freedom of religion also includes freedom *from* religion, freedom of association includes freedom *from* association.

    Mainstream libertarian philosophy holds that government interference here, in the long run, causes more harm than it solves.

    The free-market is easily able to adapt (adapt, not end) discrimination as long as the *government* can be counted on not to apply laws in an unequal, discriminating manner.

    If you look back at the events preceding and surrounding the CRA you'll see that its mainly *government* actions that acerbated the harms of racism. It was government that codified the separation of races, preventing those who would choose to serve others without regard to race from doing so. It was government that chose to institute the Jim Crow laws mandating segregation, it was government force that attempted to disarm the blacks and impose barriers to voting in order to disenfranchise them. It was government that instituted the Black Codes.

    Enforcing 'Equality Under The Law' is what we need, not laws requiring Hooters to hire male servers.

  • Tony||

    What an amazing coincidence that those governments enforcing racially discriminatory policies all happened to be in places with massive problems with racism in society.

    You don't get to treat governments as an alien force when people get to vote for their makeup. Granted, the victims of those laws weren't exactly given equal access to the franchise in those places.

  • Agammamon||

    Uhm, yeah - like the US House and Senate? Legislatures several of the northern states? Those bastions of racism?

    And again - what makes you think that modern government is different than it was then? You keep making the assumption that if we give power to the 'good people' that somehow that power won't be turned on us when the 'bad people' inevitably take their turn at the helm.

    If government is different then its only because the US is different - and then its not necessary to keep putting these laws in place.

  • Tony||

    Someone will always be at the helm. So yes, it's important that the best people possible are there.

  • ||

    If all of them thar southern hillbilly racists were going to discriminate against all the blacks they weren't already too busy lynching, what was the point of the laws codifying already normative behavior?

  • Agammamon||

    I guess, based on one of his earlier comment, that since all the hillbillies were already racisting it up then those laws caused no harm and no-one should have ever complained about them.

  • Tony||

    Those same hillbilly racists get elected to public office.

  • ||

    Repeating your assertion doesn't answer the question.

  • Hyperion||

    Who refuses to hire a person because they're gay? How would the employer even know. Do they have a 'Are you gay' checkbox on the application form?

    This is fucking stupid, like most shit that the Dems come up with. What else is in that bill that has nothing to do with civil rights, or whether or not you can discriminate against someone because of sexual preference? Did anyone read it yet? Or do we have to pass it to see what's in it?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Don't worry. If you like your straight employees, you can keep them.

  • John||

    If we are going to protect gays, why not fat people? Fat people suffer all kinds of discrimination in the work place. Talk to anyone who lost a significant amount of weight and every one of them will tell you how much better they were treated in general and in their career as a result. Same holds true in reverse for people who gain weight. Hell, I had a friend in college who spent a good portion of his 20s as a degenerate drunk and drug addict. He got clean in his 30s and gained a bunch of weight and he will tell you straight up people treat him worse for being fat than they ever treated him for being an addict.

    If people think liberals are going to stop with gays, they are kidding themselves. If you are committed to the idea that all results must meet some ideal standard of fairness and equality, which liberals totally are, there is no end to this shit. We will end up with a world where every employment decision is subject to federal litigation and thus effectively, judicial approval. Shame on anyone who supports this.

  • GILMORE||

    NO FATTIES

  • entropy||

    Being fat is not fashionable so they don't get protection. It's all about the in clique.

    Hell, Michelle Obama is probably out there somewhere right now telling people they have to eat vegetables and do more jumping jacks because their lazy fat asses are ruining the economy.

    They'll push for pedophile rights before they stop picking on fat people for being different.

  • Tony||

    So gays are unworthy of the same protections racial minorities and women get? Or you don't think the protections should extend to gays because of a potential slippery slope? Why don't we ask some gays if they're comfortable having their equal rights sacrificed on the alter of John's paranoia. Oh, I'm one. No thank you.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Oh, I'm one. No thank you.

    And we don't hate you because you're gay. We hate you because...

    I'll let the others list out reasons.

  • sarcasmic||

    About the only kinds of people I really hate are hate thieves and liars. Especially the cowardly sort that uses government to do their thieving and lying for them.

  • ||

    I'll let the others list out reasons.

    I hope Reason has budgeted for a few more terabytes of server space.

  • GILMORE||

    Being gay in no way gets in the way of you being a complete douchebag.

    We now celebrate your gay
    (short fireworks display)

    *note to self = telling tony to eat a bag of dicks is no longer recommended

  • ||

    telling tony to eat a bag of dicks is no longer recommended

    The go bad almost immediately after harvesting. I do not recommend dick by the bag.

  • Numeromancer||

    Now ^this is how to be gay on this site.

    So I'm told.

  • R C Dean||

    So gays are unworthy of the same protections racial minorities and women get?

    Well, in the sense that those "protections" shouldn't be available to anyone at all, yes.

  • Agammamon||

    "Why don't we ask some gays if they're comfortable having their equal rights sacrificed on the alter of John's paranoia."

    No-one is talking about taking any of your rights - its *you* who are talking about taking other's rights.

  • Tony||

    I believe a right not to be discriminated against by potential employers is a legitimate right, and a more defensible one than the right of employers to discriminate. Apart from the simple matter of right and wrong, one adds to market rationality and the other detracts from it.

  • Zeb||

    Plenty of people want to do the same for fat people. I think Canada forces airlines to give fatsos two seats on an airplane for the price of one.

  • GILMORE||

    Man, that's awesome. I want to get fat and Canadian now.

  • Swiss Servator, Sail Genfersee||

    Poutine will be the answer to both.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    How do they know your weight? Could I submit that I'm 5'6" and weigh 250 pounds to get 2 seats?

  • Eric||

    Being gay is not something that one can change John. Being fat is.

    On that note...I've always wondered at the conservative mindset on the issue of sexual choice. For me, and most people I would assume, heterosexuality is in no way shape or form a "choice". I've been attracted to females since I was young, and I couldn't change that if I tried. Males....not interested.

    Sooo...why do social conservatives always refer to it as a choice? Do they have to make that painstaking "choice" every day? Are they envious of gays for following their desires, while they have to go through life suppressing theirs?

  • GILMORE||

    " I've been attracted to females since I was young"

    The indoctrination starts early, we know.

    take this twice a day

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-OgG1A74c

  • Eric||

    Your video is just the appetizer compared to this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ

  • GILMORE||

    Eeeeeewwwwww. The dancing is gay enough, but the music is... ick....and those guys are old and creepy.

    FOR THE GAYEST STRAIGHT GUY VIDEO IN GAYDOM, I GIVE YOU =

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR0j7sModCI

    *warning = not appropriate for children of any sexual orientation. Its just.... no. don't do it.

  • Eric||

    Jesus I forgot about that video. You win.

    And I'd like to add that if someone argues Nurture over Nature, then the 80's should have rendered us ALL gay.

  • GILMORE||

    'And I'd like to add that if someone argues Nurture over Nature, then the 80's should have rendered us ALL gay."

    100% agreed. I was like 12, going, "What the fuck? why are all the adults on MTV wearing eyeliner and tights and prancing around shoving their genitals in my face?" That's when I decided I preferred Devo and Run DMC. Even Bruce Springsteen had too much butch-gay undertones for me.

    I want a pink cut-off t-shirt (midriff showing!) with neon blue words saying, "1986 SUCKED"

  • Zeb||

    You know, there were girls watching MTV then too. Those guys might have been trying to shove their genitals in their faces, not yours.

  • GILMORE||

    I have it on good authority that women also were creeped out by the men with the eyeliner and tights and the slaphappy dancing. Karma Chameleon? No, that's a fucking transvestite. And Robert Smith was not particularly the most Masculine Male Role Model. When that's one end of the spectrum, and there's an oiled up Rambo / Schwartzenegger/Dolf Lundgren on the other end? ITS A FUCKING GAY-INDOCTRINATING SANDWICH

    Look dude, were you a teenager in the 1980s or not? Because if not, then STFU and take my word for it.

  • entropy||

    Is that really true? I've heard of people struggling with their weight for their whole lives and even struggling with self-loathing over it.

  • Zeb||

    I think that some people are just fat. But most could probably lose the weight with some diet modification and exercise.

    As with most things, it is far more complicated than "fatties just need to eat better and exercise" or "fat people can't help it, stop discriminating".

  • Agammamon||

    Yes, kinda like I have to take hormone supplements and starve myself to lose weight due to my hypothyroidism.

  • Eric||

    And if that excuse works 30% of the American population's going to try using it.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Your thyroid controls your metabolic functions so can easily make it very difficult, even impossible to lose weight.

    However, most thyroid issues are resolved by medications and the issue can be medically proven (therefore people cannot simply say "I have" - well, they can, but there is a real test).

    Aside from that - it is my understanding, that people with true medical issues which directly affect their weight (cause them unable to lose weight) is around 1%.

  • ||

    For me, and most people I would assume, heterosexuality is in no way shape or form a "choice".

    At the same time, one isn't born biologically heterosexual. Sexuality develops over time. You weren't "born straight"; your sexuality didn't develop until later, probably influenced by a combination of genes and environment. You probably have more specific sexual attractions, to particular body types, facial bone structures, or hair colors, for instance, that were influenced similarly.

    None of which matters, nor does it make your point, since genes and environment are equally culpable in just about every aspect of our physical and psychological expression.

  • John||

    Being gay is not something that one can change John. Being fat is.

    I know a lot of fat people who would disagree. And if fat people are suffering even more than gays are, why should they be denied protection under the law?

  • Tony||

    Good question. Maybe the problem is they struggle with throwing parades?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    What about short people? I think short people need anti-discrimination laws enacted.

  • Banjos||

    Short men? Definitely. Women? Everyone loves a short, petite woman. Especially sassy ones with big boobs who have a love of folk/ bluegrass acoustic instruments.

  • Brett L||

    Ugh. Mandolin loving shorties? Fit only for slavery.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Hey!

  • ||

  • Rhywun||

    Short people got no reason to live.

  • Rhywun||

    Dammit.

  • GILMORE||

    JUST WHAT WE NEED MOAR LIBERTARIAN HOMOPHOBES

    WE NEED TO GAY UP QUICK

    HIT IT =

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Cw6-xRHdg

  • Winston||

    Where is Ken?

  • GILMORE||

    Out. On. The. Dance. Floor.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Actually, I did not fire him because he is a gay man. I fired him because he's just not very good at doing the work I hired him to do."

    "Your Honor, this is just a blatant attempt to muddy the waters."

  • Swiss Servator, Burn a Böögg||

    And that will cost you $135,000 to get to the point where they statement can be made.

  • wareagle||

    I still want someone to call bullshit on the B part. Wanting it both ways. Literally. Pick one.

  • Winston||

    You Know Who Else opposes Enda?

  • Swiss Servator, Burn a Böögg||

    I read that as "opposes Enya"...

  • SugarFree||

    I oppose Enya.

  • waffles||

    I'm pro Enya.

  • Swiss Servator, Sail Genfersee||

    The aliens? Oh, wait they oppose Ender...

  • Winston||

    Dammit! No one picked up I was referring to Sinn Fein. You know the political arm of that group beloved by HnR and its favorite GOP pol Peter King.

  • Banjos||

    Why would a gay person want to work for someone who hates them?

  • Homple||

    They may not want to work for them, just sue them or shake them down.

  • Banjos||

    Exactly. It's just like that 30 year old progressive activist law student who purposefully went to Georgetown to push for access to the pill. She could have freely attended any other law school that offered students birth control pills but chose to go there specifically to push an agenda. This will be nothing but a shakedown. And worse, hinder gays as companies will now be afraid to hire them as they can't fire someone who is gay and incompetent without opening themselves up to litigation. Good job, progressives.

  • Brett L||

    For the same reason some would want to force someone to take wedding pictures who would prefer not to. Self-loathing, I suppose. (Which is in no way limited or correlated to being gay.)

  • Homple||

    "what will come of freedom of association"? Perhaps you meant to ask "What will BECOME of freedom of association?"

    The freedom of association horse left the barn in the days of 1960s civil rights legislation, jumped aboard the USS Interstate Commerce Clause, which ship has long since sailed.

    Remember the effect on florists and wedding cake bakers of your successful whooping for gay marriage? Passing this legislation will screw over many more business than that did.

    Once you give a group the means to push people around, members of that group will start pushing people around.

  • Tony||

    I think it behooves us not to forget that the "freedom of association" argument does not precede the existence of bigotry in the workforce, but was tacked on as the principle-like excuse for bigots arguing against these protections.

  • waffles||

    Your just exchanging natural bigotry for government-backed bigotry. Now we have government authorizing and enforcing bigotry but this time it is the correct kind of bigotry.

  • Tony||

    What on earth is natural bigotry?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Cite?

  • Jeff||

    I think it behooves us not to forget that Tony is a retarded fascist. Thankfully, he makes doing so impossible.

  • Agammamon||

    Oooh, look out everyone, we have a constitutional scholar up in here.

  • Tony||

    Wasn't talking about the constitution, but about the history of racist rhetoric.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Why would a gay person want to work for someone who hates them?

    I can easily imagine a situation in which a gay individual might think some particular job would be very cool and desirable, either based on the compensation or the actual job functions. In that case, I can also easily envision that person taking pains to conceal his or her private life from the employer.

    To be honest, I have no problem with that. No more than I have a problem with refraining to expound upon my economic or political beliefs in the presence of some of my friends and acquaintances. I believe some people use the term, "compartmentalization".

  • The Late P Brooks||

    WE ARE THE COSMOTARIAN GAY ROBOT ARMY OF MISESIAN SQUISHES

    *Salutes snappily, shoulders Hello Kitty AR-15*

  • GILMORE||

    ""Hello Kitty AR-15*""

    OMG That would be SO FUCKING AWESOME. Someone HAS to do that.

    Fuck, now banksy is so going to steal that idea.

  • GILMORE||

  • GILMORE||

    as a side note... I had to get a blackberry again after like 5 years without one because my company only would do encrypted mail and it was like, 'blackberry or nothing' as far as mobile business comms (that or pay $150 for 'Goodapp' thing).. so anyway, I went on ebay to find the cheapest BBry I could find, and it was PINK.

    (people say its sorta light-purple, but like Donut in RvB, No: its fucking pink)

    I showed it to people at work and they were like, "ha, great". cute and all.

    I didn't think it made nearly enough of a point.

    So I went to a gift-card shop, and got like shiny reflective unicorn and hearts and rainbow stickers, and some glitter, and a little Justin bieber picture and stuck them all on the phone. ITS AWESOME NOW.

    People I work with are actually scared to talk to me about it.

  • waffles||

    If this law passes you might not get hired if your potential employer sees that phone.

  • Agammamon||

    Its probably for the best - Google has leaked some info on Kit-Kat and it seems they're integrating their search app into the home page. As in, their search app *is* the home page, and will have access to pretty much everything you do with the phone.

  • ||

    I don't quite see how being gay and applying for a job is comparable to being black and applying for a job.

    It's not immediately obvious to anyone if you're gay or not so how would anyone know to discriminate against you if they were that bigoted against gays?

    Gayness may not be a choice, but who you decide to fuck is as private as who you voted for in the last election. Anti-discrimination for hiring purposes seem pretty unnecessary.

  • waffles||

    Gayness is not a choice. Presenting yourself as gay is. No one could possibly know your orientation in a professional environment because there is a certain decorum to professionalism.

  • Tony||

    It's easier to tell with some than others. Sure, some gays have the "luxury" of being able to pass as straight, but that's not exactly an argument for their having the full and equal ability to participate in society.

  • waffles||

    But employment is not society. Just admit that there are serious negative consequences to this law and I will be happy. I may think the negative outweigh the positive and you may think otherwise, that's fine. Just please acknowledge that laws like this have potential for abuse.

  • Tony||

    I do not believe there is a significant problem of employers being overburdened with discrimination suits. But if that problem is real, it already exists with respect to racial, religious, and sex discrimination. The problem of sexual orientation not being included as a protected characteristic while those other ones are is a deep and painful miscarriage of justice.

    I would accept either the argument that none of the protections should exist or that, if they exist, they should include gays. But the argument that we can't extend existing protections to gays because of the potential for burdensome lawsuits doesn't really fly considering the protections already exist for much larger groups.

  • sarcasmic||

    I do not believe there is a significant problem of employers being overburdened with discrimination suits.

    Way to move the goalposts and attack a straw man at the same time.

    The point some people made was that even employers who wouldn't have discriminated in absence of such a law must change their behavior to avoid being sued for the appearance of discrimination. That change in behavior, for example avoiding interviews with gays when possible so as to avoid being sued for hiring the non-gay applicant who was better qualified for the job, will hurt gays in the long run.

  • Tony||

    So in order to avoid punishment for discriminating against gays, they are forced to discriminate against gays?

  • GILMORE||

    "Tony|11.4.13 @ 1:28PM|#

    I do not believe there is a significant problem of employers being overburdened with discrimination suits"

    so, that means ergo you should personally have the option of filing one if your poorwittle feewlings get hurwt because *you are part of a protected class* and others aren't. We see.

  • Tony||

    Libertarians sure like to talk like they're a pair of testicles with arms, but if someone were to fire you because you were white, I somehow doubt you'd take it with dignity.

  • GILMORE||

    I never wanted to work at a gay black strip club anyway, you mendacious twat.

  • Tony||

    I cannot wait. I JUST CANNOT WAIT until the day white men actually are an underprivileged minority. Libertarianism would disappear instantly.

  • GILMORE||

    What "privileges" are you missing again, exactly, Gay Tony?

    (FYI = announcing yourself as Gay Tony is you *claiming* HomoNormative Privileges, FYI, so there's no going back now)

  • Tony||

    I'm not missing any privileges. The white and the male take care of most of them. I am somewhat ostracized from mainstream culture because of the gay, but I don't give much of a shit because I'm paid well and mainstream culture is stupid.

  • GILMORE||

    "..I am somewhat ostracized from mainstream culture because of the gay..."

    Tony, this shouldn't come as a shock to you = but its not The Gay. Gay is perfectly mainstream. No one shuns you because of The Gay. You are ostracized because you are an ASSHOLE. Which has nothing to do with the biological determinism of your sexual orientation. Asshole is a Choice, Tony. And boy are you a chooser. Sorry about the consequences, but hey, when Assholes finally rule the planet? You can be King of them. Good luck.

  • ||

    Presenting yourself as gay is. No one could possibly know your orientation in a professional environment because there is a certain decorum to professionalism.

    I want to agree with you on this, but I don't. Straight people code their personal lives into conversation and presentation in lots of tiny ways in a professional setting. Wedding rings or lack thereof leads to questions about significant others, framed photos on desks, asking for time off to care for loved ones, who one brings or whether one goes stag to the company Christmas party, etc.

    My employers are dyed in the wool SoCons and I had to consider very carefully whether I was going to bring my boyfriend of over a year to one of the Christmas parties whereas other coworkers brought boyfriends or girlfriends of a few weeks. Usually I just choose to go stag because it was so awkward.

  • ||

    Straight people code their personal lives into conversation and presentation in lots of tiny ways in a professional setting.

    That would presumably occur after you were hired. Although I suppose this law covers both ends of the employment process (hiring and termination), it would be very difficult to tell by any inherent trait, like, say, skin color, that you were gay during the hiring process.

  • waffles||

    I can see the awkwardness happening but I can't imagine you being fired for bringing your boyfriend to a Christmas party. I should seriously put a picture of my romantic partner on my desk though.

    I just think sweeping legal protections like this have serious problems that get ignored because it just feels good to pass legislation like this. Just like it feels for me to wear heels and lipstick and make kissy faces at myself in the mirror. Which does NOT make me transgender.

  • Tony||

    No it makes you a transvestite.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, for hiring sure - however at some point some of these people are going to talk about their private lives with coworkers, attend social functions, whatnot and the word is going to get out unless they take pains to hide it

    And you may not *know* your boss hates homosexuals until the cat is out of the bag.

  • Agammamon||

    Though that last bit *is* unlikely IME - Most fag-haters of my acquaintance find some pretext to disparage homosexuals in my presence within only a few days.

  • GILMORE||

    I like to play along with the fag-haters.

    I have a Gay Agenda powerpoint presentation I made back in 1998. I found some crazy anti-gay website that claimed to have gotten the original Gay Agenda/World Takeover meeting transcript, and since I wanted to kill like a few hours and was practicing powerpoint, I decided to boil it down to 30-40 slides or so (assume a 1hr presentation!). Its pretty good, but could certainly be improved. I added some shit on my own where I thought the Gay Agenda could use some more 'contemporary' insidious plots. Like Female Football Commentators. See, didn't know that, did you? The use of females on the sidelines is a subtle effort to gay-up straight American men by blurring traditional gender roles. Also, "normalizing" gayness by including at least one gay character in every sitcom. Try and guess which! The confusion has to start somewhere. Women in the army, etc. I sprinkled my own stuff in there wherever I could. Seriously, The Gay Agenda really needed a straight-guy's touch to make it genuinely fucking scary to people suffering from chronic gayphobia.

    Secondary interesting side-note = some of the most viscious homophobes I've ever encountered have been older women. Maybe its the old-time religion or something. But, for example, my dad? Serious old-school catholic, ex-marine officer... you'd think he'd be all anti gay. Nope. Nope its the women his age. Creepy, they are.

  • ||

    Please tell me you've seen

    Thanks to Betty Bowers, homosexuals' sneaky little secrets are now revealed to the godly: THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!

    I've found my mother was emotionally invested in being anti-gay whereas my dad felt like it was his technical duty to be anti-gay because the church says so. Every time I turn around he's got a story about being cruised by guys in parks, having a pleasant conversation about the gospel of Christ with them and going back to his jog.

  • Agammamon||

    Have you seen http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

    I haven't checked them out in years and your BB link brought it all back.

  • ||

    Oh god, I'd forgotten about landoverbaptist. Good times.

  • GILMORE||

    "jesse.in.mb|11.4.13 @ 2:33PM|#

    Please tell me you've seen =

    Thanks to Betty Bowers, homosexuals' sneaky little secrets are now revealed to the godly: THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!

    Nope. News to me.

    First glance? It seems to me that some liberal progtards are co-opting the Church of Subgenius rhetorical style and applying it selectively to their approved-mock-topics (this one being religious homophobia)

    I don't think its as clever or funny as landover Baptist was. Its sort of blatantly partisan liberal stuff masked in hyperbolic evangelical rhetoric. I actually think the funniest "slogans" they have are the baldly political ones, which I'd totally rock for their "irony value"

    I mean, who wouldn't want a T-Shirt which says, "LIBERAL" written out in proud American Flag letters? I would want a weeping Statue of Liberty and Bald Eagle too if I could get it. I would wear that with PRIDE dude, mad pride.

    Or "1. stop thinking 2. stop caring 3. congratulations, You're a Republican!"

    See, my friends would love me wearing this. They're at least honest in admitting that "Im a democrat because i'm too lazy to bother with the details", whereas "yeah, Gilmore's a libertarian because he has to be such a #)@($@ KNOW IT ALL about everything..."...

  • GILMORE||

    Oh.... P.S. Check out ChristianExodus for the REAL DEAL version of betty bowers bullshit... I loves those guys!!! They're real, and they're so cute with their secession and the holy land and all....

    http://christianexodus.org/ind.....&Itemid=66

  • ||

    Oh.... P.S. Check out ChristianExodus for the REAL DEAL version of betty bowers bullshit... I loves those guys!!! They're real, and they're so cute with their secession and the holy land and all....

    Wow, so they're the free state project hepped up on Jesus?

    I'm kind of curious about the theology behind that. Christians are supposed to be in the world but not of the world if I remember correctly, living lives that bear witness to Christ's love.

  • GILMORE||

    "Wow, so they're the free state project hepped up on Jesus?"

    FUCK YES THEY ARE!

    Man, I got cool with these people back in like 2001-2003 or thereabouts...and was an avid commenter on their discussion-lists.

    re: theology, you got me. I'm ex-catholic which means I know fuck all about the bible.

    I portrayed myself as a recently-divorced computer programmer from MD who found jesus and wanted to join the CE club. It was fun. The whole schtick was "where can we form The New Israel" yadda yadda because the Real World (tm) had gotten WAY too non-godly and gay and immoral and stuff and if we all just club-up together, we can make it all work! Step 1 was "personal secession" (isn't that so cutely 'modern self-help'?)... and eventually you'd get around to the good-ol REAL SECESSION.

    I guess they're still working on it. Actually the last Newsletter Update is from 2010? aw. Its so sad. They seem to be reduced to just a few stragglers.

    They've always reminded me of the Mr Show guy who formed New Freedonia

    http://www.funnyordie.com/vide.....mrshow_fan

  • Tony||

    WTF is AOL? Other than that, pretty spot on. Eerie really.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't, I just give them my creepy 'you're doing something absurd and unamusing' stare and ignore the comment - its usually a non-sequitor anyway, almost like they have to check to make sure I'm *not* gay.

    If they persist I point out how rare homosexuality is compare to the amount of effort they spend avoiding it, that they're idiots for worrying about it, and they better get used to it - odds are within another 20 years gender is going to be mutable and easily changed and that's the world they'll be living in.

  • GILMORE||

    "Agammamon|11.4.13 @ 2:34PM|#

    I don't, I just give them my creepy 'you're doing something absurd and unamusing' stare and ignore the comment

    ppppt. NO FUN! what you SHOULD do is nod and go along with their whole Hetero-Normative-Persecution-Psychosis or whatever it is... then meanwhile subscribe their various email addresses to every single Bondage / Scat/ Fatty/ Granny/ Midget porn sites you can find. Get them sent catalogues and shit.

    All 'hetero', mind you.

    I think they'll stop worrying about the gaze eventually.

  • Agammamon||

    You need to post that so the rest of us can see it.

  • ||

    I got lost in threading, who is posting what for the rest?

  • GILMORE||

    "'Agammamon|11.4.13 @ 2:36PM|#

    You need to post that so the rest of us can see it"

    You mean my Gay Agenda.ppt? I'll try and find it. We're talking ~15 yrs old. But I recently moved and consolidated a bunch of old hard-drives, so there's actually a better chance now of locating it than otherwise... will let you know.

  • waffles||

    I can't pretend to be black or a woman but I can pretend to be gay. Will that scare a potential employer into hiring me to avoid a lawsuit? Is there a potential for abuse.

    YOU BET.

    So why invite the problem?

  • R C Dean||

    I think you can pretend to be a woman.

    Or am I totally misunderstanding what it is that trannies are doing?

  • waffles||

    It's not pretend for them!

  • ||

    You can pretend, but it's harder for everybody else to play make believe along with you. Pretending to be gay doesn't require any modification. It's basically as simple as saying "I prefer it in the butt" with a straight (heh, cwutididthar?) face.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, this particular law would make that pretending get you protection regardless of how unconvincing it is. Even if you make literally no changes and just say "I'm a woman."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    how would anyone know to discriminate against you if they were that bigoted against gays?

    Let me spell it out for you:
    You're not really free if you're not free to wear your drum majorette outfit on the oil rig.

  • Brett L||

    Well, I think PPE might preclude that.

  • Agammamon||

    I think you could work with it. Short skirt and steel-toed shoes give off a kind of punk/cheerleader-slut vibe.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I look forward to the day that every employer who wants to hire Tony gets to sue him for choosing someone else.

  • ||

    We can only dream. A policy usually has to affect someone personally before they can see the error in the reasoning behind it to begin with. Even then, they usually don't see how the same principle applies beyond their little world. Just like journalists and reporters will support freedom of press while simultaneously cheering on every other statist action taken by top men.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement