Kentucky Was Getting Too Diverse Anyway

Kentucky's Gov. Ernie Fletcher just flashed the biggest ceremonial middle finger in recent memory. He signed an order declaring April 11 "Diversity Day" and "then cut from the state government's hiring policy a provision that explicitly protected public employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation."

If you're a gay man or woman trying to make his way through the rat race in Kentucky: Well, I hear West Virginia's pretty nice.

Comments

[MP]

One discrimination provision down, 99 to go.

[Mr. Nuance]

Student expelled from private college for being gay:

http://www.abpnews.com/944.article

Lest one get the idea that the Kentucky government is the only Kentuckleberries giving gay people the finger. I guess one can take the position that it is acceptable for private employers to discriminate, but not state employers. That positions seems a bit overnuanced to me.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

He signed an order declaring April 11 "Diversity Day"

Gosh, that's controversial, aint it?

If you're a gay man or woman trying to make his way through the rat race in Kentucky: Well, I hear West Virginia's pretty nice.

The HORROR! - of not getting the special treatment and gov't perks you're owed because you have a sexual aberration. Surely homosexuals have the same rights as "women and minorities" to file bogus discrimination lawsuits!

[mk]

So getting expelled due to one's sexual orientation is now considered "not getting the special treatment and gov't perks you're owed"?

If this university wants to disallow gays, well, I guess that is their business, except when they take state funds. THen it's everyone in the state of Kentucky's business, isn't it?

[Brian24]

The HORROR! - of not getting the special treatment and gov't perks you're owed because you have a sexual aberration.

Please. Not getting fired for what you do in the bedroom is a perk?

[albo]

"then cut from the state government's hiring policy a provision that explicitly protected public employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation."

so you'd like more laws? more protection for certain groups? can the state still discrimate against fat people? or will they get special protection soon?

[Jersey McJones]

You know how you know if someone is against discrimination laws? (hint: they've never experienced it - or - they engage in it)

JMJ

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Student expelled from private college for being gay:

Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him up-front that they don't want him there?

From that URL:
WLEX and the Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper both reported that Johnson had retained an attorney.

Oh, that's why. I can smell the land-shark money from here.

"We tell prospective students about our high standards before they come. We are different by design and are non-apologetic about our Christian beliefs."

Good for them.

That positions seems a bit overnuanced to me.

You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check.

[metalgrid]

Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him up-front that they don't want him there?

Without knowing the subject it's hard to tell, but people aren't neccessarily self-aware enough to know about their orientation. In addition, I'm sure he could be an ex-gay who relapsed :p

Oh, that's why. I can smell the land-shark money from here.

Good, I hope he sues the school so they'll never accept state funding again. Why the heck would you be a private school when you hang off the state teat?

You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check.

Wait a sec, we have state funded Muslim private schools now? When did this happen?

[Mr. Nuance]

That positions seems a bit overnuanced to me.

You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check.

No. I am merely saying that I would have similar anti-discrimination standards for private employers and for the state acting in its capacity as an employer. Of course, this leaves some open questions where I do not have a strong opinion yet, including:

- what (if any) should those common anti-discrimination standards be?

- should the same anti-discrimination standards be applied to employers-seeking-employees as colleges-seeking-students?

- should there be some kind of a religious exception to any anti-discriminations standard, something akin to a "conscience clause" or conscientious objector status?

[Jersey McJones]

Mr F. Le Pu,

"Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him up-front that they don't want him there?"

That's not the question. The question is - can a state funded school or any school that benefits from the taxpayers (roads, water, police, firemen, etc) be able to discriminate against some Americans because certain lowlifes think gays are bad people?

"Oh, that's why. I can smell the land-shark money from here."

Why not? What recourse does he have? Should the perpetrators go to prison (I wish - then we'd see how they like gays!)?

""We tell prospective students about our high standards before they come. We are different by design and are non-apologetic about our Christian beliefs."

Good for them."

Fuck them. The only reason the kid shouldn't have gone to the school is that the very quote above tells you right there that the school must not be very good.

"You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check."

So, you're comparing being gay in a "Christian" school with urinating on the Bible (Koran)? Nice. And I suppose lying about a blow job in a deposition is akin to outing a CIA agent too, huh?

Look, if the school benefits from the taxpayers in anyway then they should not be able to discriminate against gays. Anyone who thinks otherwise may as well just pay there taxes directly to the church.

JMJ

[David]

You would have the State force Muslim schools to enroll students who piss on the Koran in their spare time. Check.

How is a student being gay, and a student pissing on a Koran even remotely comparable?

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

If this university wants to disallow gays, well, I guess that is their business, except when they take state funds.
Do they take state funds? How about you tell us whether or not they do before you make implications?

If they don't (and they shouldn't, and I doubt that they do, because it's a religious school), then you're correct: it's their business and not your business.

Please. Not getting fired for what you do in the bedroom is a perk?
Making bogus claims to that effect because you got fired for imcompetence is a perk. Having an employer who's intimidated into not firing you in the first place is another.

[Brian24]

- should there be some kind of a religious exception to any anti-discriminations standard, something akin to a "conscience clause" or conscientious objector status?

Behavior is usually a useful dividing line. If the hypothetical Muslim school was accepting state money, it should be required to accept non-Muslims; however, "students who piss on the Koran" could be expelled.

Why on earth would he bother to attend a college which tells him up-front that they don't want him there?

Wasn't this one used a lot about black people in the '50s and '60s? It's hard for me to understand why he'd want to be there either, but there are possible reasons. Maybe all the friends he grew up with attend that school. Maybe it has a good program in something he wants to study. Maybe he likes the teachers.

[QuietReaderGirl]

It's probably useless to point out to Mr. Le Mur no one said anything of the kind. Private religious colleges have much more leeway to discrimate against people than private businesses or public colleges.

I'm totally fine with public employment having the least leeway to discrimate against people for immutable characteristics like race, sexual orientation or religion. If you want to a discriminatory asshole, you don't deserve money from the very people you would discriminate against.

[Brian24]

Making bogus claims to that effect because you got fired for imcompetence is a perk.

Talk about a straw man. Okay, I'm against bogus claims to that effect.

[Alan Vanneman]

Hey, kids!

It's the West Virginia link that's the story. Southern Baptist college in Williamsburg, WVa, bounced a theatre arts major for being gay. Theatre arts for straights? I guess that's no singing, no dancing, no make-up, and no costumes.

[metalgrid]

Do they take state funds? How about you tell us whether or not they do before you make implications?

Dude, serious, it takes a few seconds to google something before you spout off about it: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14313621.htm

First, as to why he attended the school in the first place:
But a copy of the student handbook provided by the university confirmed the policy was not spelled out in 2003-04, when Johnson chose to attend.

As to funding it recieves:

the proposed budget includes $10 million of state debt to construct a pharmacy building on the school's Whitley County campus. The budget also includes $1 million to fund scholarships for students attending the college's yet-to-be created pharmacy program.

I guess private means public now.

[Yes, I know, way radical idea]

- should there be some kind of a religious exception to any anti-discriminations standard, something akin to a "conscience clause" or conscientious objector status?

Behavior is usually a useful dividing line. If the hypothetical Muslim school was accepting state money, it should be required to accept non-Muslims; however, "students who piss on the Koran" could be expelled.

I wasn't talking about a "conscience clause" for the employer (or college as the case may be). In other words, a clause where the employer/college can escape the effects of an anti-discrimination rule by making an affirmation that the employer's religion makes it undesirable for it to hirethe protected minority.

I think you are probably coming at it from the prevailing ethos, which is that state governments, in their capacity as employers, should have to follow different anti-discrimination rules than private employers and that at college, it should make all the difference as to whether the college gets any gov't money.

I am challenging that ethos. I think the distinctions it makes are artificial and somewhat unjust. I am arguing for a one-size-fits all anti-discrimination law standard for gov't employers and private employers. To clarify a possible point of confusion, I am not saying that the state should be allowed to discriminate when it comes to according rights to a suspect, assessing property taxes, handing out traffic tickets, or any of the other helpful things a state does in its role as an organ of gov't. However, I am saying that when a state hires employees or partially subsidizes colleges, then the state hirers or admissions officers should be following the same anti-discrimination standards as their counterparts in the purely private sector. No more, no less.

[joe]

Well you see, metalgrid, Mr. Le Mur was too busy googling up the evidence that gay people are filing meritless lawsuits when they are fired for poor job performance.

Evidence that he'll show us any minute now.

Yep, any minute now...

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

You know how you know if someone is against discrimination laws?
The parrot learned a new phrase!

Wait a sec, we have state funded Muslim private schools now? When did this happen?
I didn't say we did, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

Do you think we should have state-funded Muslim schools? I don't.
How about state-funded Christian schools? I don't.

How is a student being gay, and a student pissing on a Koran even remotely comparable?
They're offensive to and contrary to the tenants of the religions that these people are free to practice.

Anyone want to buy some nicely embroidered hearts? They're just the right size to sew onto a shirt sleeve. How about bumper stickers? They say "I support the company that made this bumper sticker."

[way rad]

should have been: --I WAS talking about a consciece clause for the employer.--

[dhex]

BECAUSE BOTH ARE BAD OK?

(because both offend the myths of others? and we can't have that!)

[metalgrid]

Umm Joe, is Le Mur your libertarian caricature? I was obviously late to the party.

[Mo]

Even though I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws for private businesses due to freedom of association, the government should be held to them because the government isnot free to associate with whom they want. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you get treated the same by everyone, no matter who you choose to boff.

And a private university receiving state funds had better not discriminate based on sexual orientation either. If it offends them so much to have a gay student, they should pay back the state's money.

[David]

They're offensive to and contrary to the tenants of the religions that these people are free to practice.

You don't a difference between an overt act of disrespect against someone's faith, and person's existence being offensive to someone's faith?

[Ben]

What Mo said.

[Further explanations from WayR]

Even though I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws for private businesses due to freedom of association, the government should be held to them because the government isnot free to associate with whom they want.

I am saying that the state government in capacity as employer should have the same freedom of association that private employers have. I am drawing a distinction between rights afforded by the government and perks (eg, jobs) given by the government (and its private contractors and subcontractors) in its discretion.

I think the current system is set up to push protected minorities into government jobs. I think people use those gov't jobs as an excuse in their minds to excuse discrimination in the private sector more than they otherwise would. I think the current system causes the private gov't subcontractor economy to become separate from the rest of the private economy which causes inefficiencies that end up costing taxpayer money.

On the education side, I think the federal government leverages small money into large control. There is a lot of gamesmanship (gamespersonship?) when it comes to expunging the college of every last gov't dollar. Again, this is inefficient.

As far as the constitutional argument goes, I think the commerce clause trumps the free association clause. I do think college admissions are a commerce matter.

[MP]

Even though I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws for private businesses due to freedom of association, the government should be held to them because the government isnot free to associate with whom they want. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you get treated the same by everyone, no matter who you choose to boff.

One beef I have with anti-discrimination laws is proving that discrimination occurred. If it was simply based on direct evidence (such as a tape recording that says "we don't hire queers"), then I might be more forgiving to the concept. But since cases are typically based on "patterns of practice" and other forms of mind-reading, I'm not sympathetic to the concept.

[Doc]

So how does our Troll of the day feel about the job guarantee for 10% minorities (your minimum black requirement apparently) in state jobs by this GOP gov at the same signing ceremony?

...He also said his executive order is meant to be an affirmative action policy that sets high goals for the state to have minorities make up at least 10 percent of the government's work force...

[Assuming I am the requested tr]

So how does our Troll of the day feel about the job guarantee for 10% minorities (your minimum black requirement apparently) in state jobs by this GOP gov at the same signing ceremony?

I think the extent of the guarantee, whether 10%, 0% or 99% should be the same for government and state employers. As far as whether the guarantee should be 0% (no guarantee at all), 10% or 99%, I express no opinion and have no strong opinion.

...He also said his executive order is meant to be an affirmative action policy that sets high goals for the state to have minorities make up at least 10 percent of the government's work force...

Gay ghetto stuck to government corps. Not good to set up this kind of job-ghetto at all. especially bad when one wants to rollback government jobs -- cost cutting suddenly becomes a gay rights issue. Solution: same standard for gov't and private employers.

[Doc]

Yes, well...uh...that was...ummmmmmm...coherent.

:roll eyes:

[Phil]

How is a student being gay, and a student pissing on a Koran even remotely comparable?
They're offensive to and contrary to the tenants of the religions that these people are free to practice.

1) It's "tenets," dummy.

2) Even the Catholics understand the difference between "being gay" and "fucking the same sex," and are willing to concede that one is sinful and the other is not. You apparently have not reached that particular satori.

[metalgrid]

Go easy on the guy Phil. Catholicism has had several thousand years to split hairs to rationalize prejudice. Baptists just haven't had the time to develop such subtlety.

[Barbar]

The college was a Baptist college... and obviously religion was important to the student who went to school there before getting kicked out.

Wait... so this guy was raised to be religious, Baptist even... and went to a Baptist college... and he still turned out to be gay???

WHOA. NO WAY.

[mk]

Barbar,

Perhaps this guy should be asking for a refund 🙂

[Ede]

Yeah, but he was a theater major, so that cancels out the Baptist thing.

[eric mattingly]

Well, a discussion near to my heart. First, I live in Kentucky. Second, I graduated from said private college.

"Fuck them. The only reason the kid shouldn't have gone to the school is that the very quote above tells you right there that the school must not be very good."

Actually, JMJ, Cumberland is a wonderful school full of people more caring and intelligent than many of the academic blowhards I have to deal with everyday in grad. school. The ADMINISTRATION, however, are a bunch of thugs. I can't say they don't have the right, being a (quasi) private institution, but it is still ridiculous and, what's more, hypocritical. Considering that 1) they are equating homosexuality (a state of being) with a sex act (pre-marital sex), and 2) The other things we're supposed to sign off on not doing (drinking, sex, etc.) is routinely broken, I wonder if the kid may not have a pretty solid case. At any rate, and especially because this place is my alma mater, I feel it my right to ridicule the idiots in charge and call them thugs-- which I do, for all kinds of reasons. I am not a Christian, but I know enough about it to know that Christianity has NOTHING to do with what these assholes are up to. It's all bible-belt money pandering.

And as for Ernie Fletcher, he could burn in hell for all I care, the jackass.

eric

[Kwix]

If, as a private business owner, I want to hire all black lesbians should I be allowed to do so? I think so. My customers are free to purchase my products or not as they see fit.

If, as a private Atheist school dean, I want to exclude anybody with a remotely religious cell in thier body should I be allowed to do so? I think so because as a private school I am supposed to derive 100% of my funds from the Student admissions and alumni. By discriminating against religious wackos the only thing that suffers is my budget.

A government entity derives 100% of it budget through coercion of the public at large which includes straight white men, black lesbians, religious fundimentalists and atheists. The body which takes money from all people by force has no choice but to offer employment to all people.

The only way to correct this deficiency is to reduce the size and scope of government thereby reducing the employee base.

[So, no worries either way, Kwi]

If, as a private business owner, I want to hire all black lesbians should I be allowed to do so? I think so. My customers are free to purchase my products or not as they see fit.

Even if they did establish quotas for private commerce, you would still be free to terminate your business and asociate with all the black lesbians who will have you on a non-commercial footing.

Two can play at the let's find the hidden freedom game!

[Rex Rhino]

Well, here is the thing:

The government should not discriminate in any way, shape, or form, period. It is one thing for a religious institution to not accept gay people, but the government has no buisness with what people do in their bedroom. It should be criminal, not just lawsuit territory, for the government to discriminate on sexual preference.

On the other hand, making discrimination laws specificly for gay people is a bit silly. Do you also support laws that protect "nerds", or fat people (it is an epidemic, not a lifestyle choice you know!), or discriminating against NASCAR fans. What kind of arbitrary group can you think up to be an oppressed minority? Can Trekkies demand equal protection under the law? What about civil war reenactors. The way to eliminate discrimination in government is to create a set of objective criteria for enployment and advancement, not create a bunch of imaginary victim groups.

Laws against discriminating based on race came about because of the unique history of slavery and apartied in America. Race was a special case with unique historical circumstances.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Sheesh, Le Mur's homophobic rantings are making Jersey look reasonable. Bigots like Le Mur are just one of the reasons why I became an atheist.

[Blunt]

Akira, sweetie, you didn't become 'an atheist', you became a religion-hating bigot and an unsufferable ueber-asshat to boot, who simply can't the fuck shut up.

And, by the way, Jersey never looks reasonable.

[biologist]

Rex:

a reminder that many states actually have laws against homosexual sex. as a result, homosexuals have often been legally prosecuted and persecuted for consensual acts that most here wouldn't consider fit subjects for criminalization.

if one weren't intending to discriminate among state employees by sexual orientation, then why would he bother eliminating that clause?

[Kwix]

Two can play at the let's find the hidden freedom game!

Nothing hidden here. Let's try this one on then. I run a Christian Bookstore and Akira walks in for an interview. In the course of the interview I ask him how well versed in the Bible he is. His response is "Well, because I am an Athiest I haven't read it all the way through." Is it discrimination for me to not hire him? He has read enough of the KJV Bible to sell plaques with 'footprints in the sand' but why would I want to have a godless heathen selling religious artifacts for me? Perhaps I should just hire a Gay man and an Atheist for good measure, eh? I am sure that my customer base would just love that! My point is that as a business owner, I derive my income from people who willingly purchase products from me. They have a right to go to my competitor if they don't like anything about my business, including my hiring practices.

Now, I am for legitimate ideas on how to diversify business including hiring the multitudes of racial mixes, all 3 sexes, all manner of sexual orientation, and so on but to have the government tell me that I need to hire a black lesbian Pagan for my WASP Christian bookstore over an equally qualified straight Christian white guy is rediculous.

Sure, somebody will say "But why would she want to work there when nobody will like her?" I don't care why she wants to work here, perhaps it is to sabotage my company or perhaps it is because she is a masochist. Either way, the government shouldn't be telling me who I can and cannot hire, particularly when it conflicts with my personal belief structure.

==============
As an aside, I have no knowledge of how much of the KJV Bible Akira has actually read.
Names and places in this post are purely coincidental and any resemblence to real persons, living or deceased, is unintentional.