The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Straights Need Not Apply, for City of West Hollywood Guaranteed Income Pilot Project

|

From the West Hollywood site:

The City of West Hollywood, in collaboration with nonprofit partner, National Council of Jewish Women/LA, will open applications for the first pilot project for guaranteed income in the nation aimed at evaluating the impact of cash payments on the financial stability and quality of life of LGBTQIA older adults. Guaranteed income is a direct and regular cash payment – no strings attached – provided to a specific group of people for a designated time. Guaranteed income pilots are a way to test the impact of these payments, while also providing a service to help financially stabilize community members and learn information to help create future, evidence-based policies and programs.

The program makes clear that, to be eligible, the applicant must (among other things) "Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex or Asexual (LGBTQIA)," as well as be poor and 50 or older.

The California Supreme Court, as it happens, has expressly held (interpreting the state constitution's equal protection clause) that "statutes according differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review." And of course equal protection principles apply to all classifications in programs in which the government engages (even if in "joint participation" with a private party) and not just to classifications written into the statute.

Here's the program's explanation for the sexual orientation discrimination suffice to justify it:

The City of West Hollywood is focusing on LGBTQIA older adults living on a low income because of the City's history, current population, and data that shows that LGBT older adults are less financially secure than their non-LGBT peers due to experiencing lifelong disparities and barriers to accessing programs that support aging adults.

I'm pretty skeptical about this, but it would be interesting to see what detailed evidence and argument the city can offer to support this in court.

NEXT: Amar and Amar on Independent State Legislatures

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.

  1. I can't wait for this needs test.

    Finally we are going to have a way to prove a person is gay.
    I won't visit California, so no way I'm moving there. But I would identify as gay and take there money. I identify as a woman and crave to have sex with women. (two at once before I die would be nice)

    1. "Finally we are going to have a way to prove a person is gay."

      Like the eunuch scene in History of the World Part 1.

    2. The gays have income a full standard deviation higher than hets in the 2010 Census. That means the average gay makes more money than 84% of hets. Then they have no expenses except on themselves. Explain why they need a guaranteed income.

      1. Of course, the 2010 census did not ask about sexual orientation, so Behar is making stuff up again.

        1. David. Here is a nice review of the subject and an analysis. Have a blessed day. Aren't you a lawyer? You need to STFU.

          https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples

      2. I have long noted that gays are more analogous to Jews as a social group. Just because you are, on average more educated and make more $ doesn't mean it's okay to discriminate against them. That's supposed to be a conservative and libertarian position.

        But you are dead wrong about the "expense." Gays DO have children, just slightly fewer on average. It's actually not that much fewer because we live in an age of contraception where heterosexuals have their 2.1 designer children.

        If heterosexuals were having quiversfuls it would be a significant difference.

        1. Why not give guaranteed income to "poor people" of any kind, with the same neediness?

          What this deal is about is buying Democrat votes with tax money.

          1. I agree that I don't think gays need this program or any kind of affirmative action.

        2. Jon. See the more complicated analysis above, referred to in Freakanomics.

          1. Yeah it's saying 20% of same sex households have kids whereas 44% of OS households do. That might explain a greater wealth effect. But I don't think it explains this:

            "Among same-sex couples with both partners in the labor force, median household income is significantly higher ($94,000) than among heterosexual couples ($86,000). That's likely due to a number of factors, but education is likely one of them, says Gary Gates, a distinguished scholar at the Williams institute and the study's author. Around 46 percent of people in same-sex couples have college degrees, compared to under one-third of people in heterosexual couples. That higher level of education also likely contributes to higher incomes for same-sex households."

            Wealth, education and income correlate with one another and some things too.

        3. "doesn't mean it's okay to discriminate against them. That's supposed to be a conservative and libertarian position."

          Actually the conservative and libertarian position is that the government doesn't need to interfere with private freedom of association, and certainly should not be doling out "guaranteed income" to favored groups at the cost and enslavement of others.

          1. As I noted above, I don't think gays need affirmative action.

            But conservatives and libertarians have learned to make peace with antidiscrimination laws, provided they are applied in a way that favor particular groups. So if we don't discriminate on the basis of "race," or "ethnic origin," that ought to include Jews and Asians, even if they make more $ than average. Likewise because gay men are on average better off economically doesn't mean it's okay to discriminate against them or that "sexual orientation" is not a valid EEO category.

            1. Gah. We can't edit these posts, once submitted?

              "provided they are applied in a way that DOESN'T favor particular groups."

            2. "But conservatives and libertarians have learned to make peace with antidiscrimination laws"

              For libertarians, it's more of a cold war with anti-discrimination laws, as there's no way to square them with libertarian principles.

              Though I'll grant that a lot of formerly libertarian institutions have fallen to the left's march through the institutions, and aren't actually promoting libertarianism anymore, but instead a kind of mash-up between libertarianism and leftism, with the percentage of the latter rising with time.

              1. Well my own personal libertarian opinion is that in libertarian utopia, antidiscrimination laws would only apply to government entities. I think Richard Epstein makes a good theoretical and practical case for this in his book on the matter.

                But that's simply not the world in which we live. I think keeping these laws in EMPLOYMENT is much more important than keeping them in public accommodations. I mean it really throws a monkey wrench in your life to lose a job. But getting denied a cake?

                Because of America's unique history with race, I'd be in favor of keeping antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations laws ONLY applicable to "race" and NONE of the other categories. But retaining ALL of the categories with regards to employment.

                But yeah, I know that's not going to happen either.

                So I'm happy to stand where Justice Gorsuch is, and I think such is hardly a "leftist" position.

  2. Jesus Christ. They are so smugly assured in the righteousness of their beliefs that they’ll just confidently and openly crap all over the discrimination laws.

    1. It's affirmative action to the max!

      1. This is obviously reparations not affirmative action.

        1. Not sure if it isn’t both (AA and reparations). I would just call it graft.

          Has anyone stopped to ask Why There? Why West Hollywood? My suggestion is it is because of the high number of Gays working in the film industry. Gay male Creatives (plus some hair dressers, etc). West Hollywood, because they have the political muscle (votes and money) there to cut their community a nice piece of the pie from the municipal budget.

    2. The anti-discrimination laws were never intended to be applied evenhandedly. Surely you've figured that out by now?

  3. My guess. The court will suddenly reverse itself on its position that transsexuals are covered under laws banning sex discrimination.

  4. If only George Orwell knew Animal Farm and 1984 were going to be used as how-to manuals.

    1. Right. Some government discrimination is OK. (And if you complain about it, you're a hateful bigot; all decent people should shun you, and the government should single you out for ill treatment.)

  5. As Kirkland would say, open wide and accept the preferences of your betters.

  6. Funny, for a long time it has been widely reported the LGBTQIA+ are better off financially that the average American. More recent reporting is a mixed bag, but I 'm certain that there are some poor LGBTQIA+ people out there.

    https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/financial-health-same-sex-couples-lgbtq/

    1. "More recent reporting is a mixed bag,"

      I'm not sure why more recent reporting should have more credibility than, say, SDSU's claim that punishing professors for speech is "not about free expression or academic freedom."

      1. I'm not sure it is more credible than the older reporting but more recent reporting is more likely to say LGBTAIA+ have more financial problems. Most everyone agrees gay men make more money that straight men on average but it appears gay women make less money than average. One article I read stated gay men and women are about 4% of the population while trans people make up about 0.09%

    2. But this is specifically for aging drag queens, not young professional gays. And stats show that marriage is the most reliable indicator of financial wellbeing and these aging gays were denied the ability to marry in their youths.

      1. I assume you're aware that being married is not why somebody is rich. The behaviors that come with maintaining a marriage tend to have a solid correlation with being financially successful. You CAN be married and broke.

        1. It's just extremely unlikely.

  7. I'm not sure California has heard of the equal protection clause.

    It currently has quotas where it requires a minimum number of women and at least one racial minority or gay person on corporate boards. AFAIK the law is being enforced, no injunction or anything like that.

    1. Shocking that a libertarian site (not Volokh, Reason itself) seems so utterly unconcerned about it.

    2. Since they were recently trying to abolish equal protection from their constitution I'd assume they have heard of it, hate it and are actively trying to promote discrimination.

    3. I'm sure some day soon some liberal jurist will explain to us that this is actually required by the Equal Protection Clause.

  8. Anyone can identify as Queer. That restriction is meaningless.

    1. Anyone can "identify" as any of them.

    2. Anyone can identify as Baptist or Republican, but I think benefits programs limited to Baptists or Republicans are a bad idea.

      1. After checking with Baptists, I am assured Heaven is reserved for them.
        The republicans, as far as I can tell, have no distinct claims on anything but Trump.

  9. Questions about poverty and prior discrimination might not be that hard to answer, at least among an older population. To the extent that federal programs distributed aid preferentially to married couples, gay people would have long been ineligible. Housing aid, in particular, was often reserved for married couples.

    1. Because sure, older straight people who would otherwise qualify for a non-discriminatory public aid program have obviously lived a life steeped in privilege.

      But go ahead and do your mental gymnastics to justify raw discrimination. You discriminate in the name of equity. LOL.

  10. I identify as a non-acronym.

    1. Like, say, "dwb68"? I don't know if acronyms have to be pronounceable.

      1. A numeronym not an acronym!

      2. Acronyms do have to be pronounceable (SCUBA, NASA, FUBAR, etc)

        Initialisms are non-pronounceable (FBI, WTF, USA, etc)

  11. Sounds bad, but all they have to do is claim their position is based on childish superstition and Prof. Volokh will be all-in for them.

    Carry on, clingers.

  12. Prof. Volokh seems quite worried about this gay issue.

    But not so much about this gay issue.

    One distinction seems to be whether an issue could be used to lather a bunch of poorly educated, roundly intolerant rubes.

    (Another distinction might be that one issue would align with an ostensible interest in freedom of expression, but . . . . let's be charitable enough to ignore that one!)

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. "But not so much about this gay issue."

      How on earth is a bill to prevent he grooming of children in schools a gay issue? That's a terribly homophobic thing to say, Arthur.

        1. Arthur wants to let a bunch of perverts try to convince kindergarteners that they're gay or trans when they're supposed to be teaching them how to paste construction paper, and he thinks that's a gay issue.

          1. Arthur wants to continue to win the culture war (reason, progress, modernity, tolerance, science, education, freedom, successful cities, and strong liberal-libertarian mainstream schools over backwardness, bigotry, ignorance, superstition, insularity, authoritarianism, dogma, desolate backwaters, and downscale, conservative religious schools).

            1. Then you should do that instead of grooming Kindergarteners.

          2. It's a blast from the past. The Briggs Initiative (California Proposition 6) sought to ban gay teachers based in part on the theory that kids will be recruited to become gay. Now we have no instruction for K-3, and "age appropriate" instruction from 4-12 on the theory that such instruction will recruit. What utter, irrational, nonsense.

            1. "It's a blast from the past. The Briggs Initiative (California Proposition 6) sought to ban gay teachers based in part on the theory that kids will be recruited to become gay. Now we have no instruction for K-3, and "age appropriate" instruction from 4-12 on the theory that such instruction will recruit."

              Completely different. There's reason to think that gay teachers will groom children.

              But there's no reason we shouldn't insist that instruction be age-appropriate. There's already been instances where they have grown men sharing sleeping quarters with teenage girls on sleep-away trips, for example.

              1. Completely different. There's reason to think that gay teachers will groom children.

                How to torpedo your argument? Step 1: claim the really horrible analogy is completely different than the current just dandy situation. Step 2: endorse the really horrible analogy.

                There's already been instances where they have grown men sharing sleeping quarters with teenage girls on sleep-away trips, for example

                Did you place a ton of money on yourself in the "weirdest irrelevant shit posted on a blog" contest?

                1. "Step 2: endorse the really horrible analogy."

                  Huh? What does anything I said have to do with gay teachers?

                  1. What does anything I said have to do with gay teachers?

                    How about:

                    There's reason to think that gay teachers will groom children.

                    1. Typo. There's no reason to think that gay teachers will groom children.

                    2. OK. What reason is there to think that any "grooming" of children to be gay will take place by straight teachers?

          3. I have a few people on mute.

      1. There is of course no bill to prevent the grooming of children in schools. You're not usually that dumb.

        1. "There is of course no bill to prevent the grooming of children in schools."

          Then this one will have to do. We need more specific bills that prevent schools from telling children that they're transgender and transitioning them without parent's knowledge or consent, but every little bit helps.

          1. Just a few weeks ago I started seeing articles about right-wing moral panics—about sexual exploitation of children. Now, here it is, cropping up right on cue.

            Twelve-inch, tell me, is this about money raising, somehow? Can I get on some list and start getting 5 calls a day to send money to save children? Will it help if I somehow let the money-raisers know I am in my mid-70s? Or must I demonstrate actual senility to attract their attention?

            1. This does not really require money.

              Just oversight of the morons with education degrees (the next best thing to soiled toilet paper) who run the education establishment.

            2. "Just a few weeks ago I started seeing articles about right-wing moral panics—about sexual exploitation of children."

              A moral panic would be a false belief that large numbers of the education establishment had succumbed to some sort of ideology claiming that a significant numbers of kindergarteners and other young children were really members of the opposite sex trapped in the wrong body. There might be a conspiracy theory that school officials would socially transition children based on their own judgement without parents' input or consent, leading eventually to puberty blockers and genital mutilation.

              But this is not a moral panic, it's actually happening.

            3. "Twelve-inch, tell me, is this about money raising, somehow?"

              Probably. There are lots of people being paid to provide so-called services, from social workers taking children from parents who are skeptical that their children require puberty blockers or hormone treatment, to doctors who provide elective double mastectomies to children, and sometime breast reconstructive surgery a few months or years later.

    2. Artie. You need to stand up in kindergarten class. Confess to your white privilge. Then take responsibility for the under performance of the diverses.

  13. Not to be too cynical, but this seems to be no different than standard race-based affirmative action, or "affirmative racism" as I heard it called. If you can have racial preferences to correct past injustices, why not these?

    1. Because the amount of previous discrimination was de minimis, financially. It appears to be based on LGBTxyz not being able to get married and have families, not getting benefits directed to those raising families. The theory behind those benefits is that it costs money to raise kids (and raising kids is essential for the community). They mostly weren’t raising kids, and weren’t getting the benefits either, so boo hoo. As I point out above - it is political graft and nothing more.

  14. Eugene throwing some more raw meat to his followers.

    Nom nom nom nom nom

    1. Raw meat can be delicious!

      1. Though, more seriously, I think this subject is interesting (and indeed the government action is likely unconstitutional). I'm happy to write about subjects I find interesting, regardless of whether I expect that (1) many of our readers will be outraged by it, (2) no-one will be outraged but many will be interested or enlightened by it, or even (3) no-one will be outraged but only a few (we happy few!) will be interested in it. That's one of the charms of having a blog: I can write about what interests me. And in any event, I certainly wouldn't forgo blogging about a subject that interests me simply because I expect that it will also be steak tartare for some of our readers.

        1. Well that's ... interesting. I haven't figured out my outrage quotient yet.

        2. This collection of commenters and Conspirators at a white, male blog is no coincidence; it has been carefully cultivated -- selected, attracted, then lathered.

          1. OK, Boomer. You are old, white, and male. When can we the resignation letter so you can be replaced by a diverse? Woke talk is trash. We want woke action.

        3. Professor Volokh, do you find interesting the economic handicaps inflicted by the long-time government policy to deny marriage to gay people? And, by the way, to deny housing benefits to unmarried straight people, including couples of unmarried straight partners? Do you see any relevance in that history, with regard to this program you invite people to disparage?

          1. Seems that you are advocating laws based on hypothetical harm. There is LITERALLY nothing backing it up.

          2. Steve. Marriage impoverishes males. Of course, if you hate gays, you will inflict the horrors of marriage and of divorce to see gays suffer untold agonies. Marriage was not a gay idea. It was a family lawyer idea. They destroyed the American family, with a sky high bastardy rate, and their business suffered. They needed more plunder from productive males, thus gay marriage.

          3. "Professor Volokh, do you find interesting the economic handicaps inflicted by the long-time government policy to deny marriage to gay people?"

            Wouldn't such handicaps have to exist in order to be interesting?

            1. Well, there are some. Spousal social security, for example. Many employer health plans covered spouses, etc. In many cases, filing taxes MFJ instead of as two singles.

        4. You go, Eugene. You rock.

    2. Translation: I know this is wrong, have nothing to say why this is not wrong, so I will criticize Prof. Volokh for pointing it out.

      A variation on the "Republicans Pounce" meme.

  15. How will they confirm that one is sufficiently gay? Will they use the scientifically-attested fact that a gay man will have no gag reflex, due to constantly performing fellatio?

    This observation, first made at an induction station in 1942, was studied further in 1,404 patients at a neuropsychiatric military hospital in 1944. These were soldiers who were either referred to the NP clinic or admitted to the station hospital for psychiatric evaluation and disposition. The cases varied from frank psychosis to mild adjustment problems.
    All were given a complete physical examination and psychiatric work-up. The gag reflex evaluation was made in each case. It was tested by manipulating a tongue depressor around the uvula, soft palate, and pharyngeal vault. Normally the stimulus innervates the 9th and 10th cranial nerves supplying this area and produces the gag reflex. In subjects practicing fellatio this reflex is absent even when the tongue depressor is inserted well into the vault of the
    pharynx. The positive test, i.e., the absence of the gag reflex, depends on the desensitization of this area due to conditioning, this being brought about by the repeated control of the reflex during the act of fellatio.
    Normally 8-io% of individuals will manifest a negative gag reflex.
    In the study of 1,404 patients 12% showed no gag reflex...
    Frequently it proved valuable in detecting the malingerer who attempted to obtain a discharge by professing homosexuality. Presented with the gag test findings the soldier would invariably change his story or admit having lied for selfish gains.

    Nicolai Gioscia, "The Gag Reflex and Fellatio", 107 American Journal of Psychiatry 380 (1950).

  16. Here is a novel thought. Why doesn't the City of West Hollywood institute a program to help -- wait for it -- poor people who live in the City? The only qualification is that you are poor. If it happens to be that gay people disproportionately benefit, then so be it.

    That's what liberals used to do for decades -- come up with programs to help the poor and underprivileged.

    True, you don't get to play identity politics with that, which I understand is a political handicap for certain people. But at least it is Constitutional.

    1. Because the purpose of government is not to help people, but to enrich political supporters. Helping the poor, etc is merely the justification.

      1. This is the rent seeking replete with advanced math.

  17. This collection of commenters and Conspirators at a white, male blog is no coincidence; it has been carefully cultivated -- selected, attracted, then lathered.

    (A government-funded program that discriminates against heterosexuals sounds as bad as a a government-funded program that discriminates against gays, or against Jews, or against agnostics, or against atheists, or against Muslims -- well, except to The Volokh Conspiracy and other conservative culture war casualties, who ardently embrace the latter, because clingers gonna cling . . . )

    1. "it has been carefully cultivated -- selected, attracted, then lathered."

      What evidence do you have that it has been "selected." The comment section is open to all.

      One more example of where you are full of it.

      1. I perceive the most likely explanation of the Conspiracy’s content is that the Conspiracy identified the audience it wanted, strove to attract that audience, and continues to aim at lathering that audience.

        1. That EV moved the blog to the Post implies that if he was targeting an ideological audience, it's opposite the one you suggest.

          1. Eugene's definitely had a target audience when he moved the VC to the WaPo, but it wasn't an ideological one - they specifically carved out .gov and .edu accounts from the WaPo paywall to access the VC. He wanted law students, law professors, clerks, and judges to be reading.

            The move to Reason seems more likely to have been ideology-driven. They may be able to say things here that they wouldn't have been able to say at WaPo. And I am skeptical that members of the legal community outside the Federalist Society cringers and their ilk have any reason to swing by here.

            1. Our move to (paywall-free!) Reason from The Washington Post

              "Why, then, the move? The chief reason was that we wanted to be freely available to the broadest range of readers.
              When we first moved to the Post, we knew that there was going to be a paywall (despite our attempts to negotiate around it). But our understanding was that the paywall would be quite porous, with (1) free access via RSS, Twitter, and Facebook, (2) free access to .edu/.gov/.mil readers, and (3) a generous number of free views each month for everyone. This year, though, all three elements of this have changed, and the paywall has gotten much tighter. This means that many of our most loyal readers would be unable to access the site without a Post subscription. And it means that many people whom we'd like to attract to our site might feel priced out of it.

              ...

              There was also a second reason for our move: editorial independence. The only thing more important to us than attracting new readers and keeping our old ones is making sure that we can write what we want, in the way that we think is right."

              So, rising paywall, and the WaPo started to interfere with their promised editorial independence.

            2. "Eugene's definitely had a target audience when he moved the VC to the WaPo, but it wasn't an ideological one [...] He wanted law students, law professors, clerks, and judges to be reading.."

              I agree. Implicitly, that was my point.

              They may be able to say things here that they wouldn't have been able to say at WaPo.

              I think that part was the crux of it. IIRC, EV said as much: no paywall and no editorial pressure or censorship. Ideologically, there's obviously more Federalist Society overlap here than there would at a mainstream site, much less at a left-leaning one, but outside that overlap it's far more libertarian here than the Federalist Society is. And by no measure is it the movement conservative bastion Arthur asserts EV is pursuing.

              1. I once again, for about the zillionth time, violated my self-admonition to refresh the page before posting. Anyway, Brett's comment obviously puts more flesh on my own.

        2. Artie, big talk. We need action, Boomer. Tell us when you have resigned your position and interviewed your diverse replacement.

    2. Hey that is White with a capital W" buddy. Sick of the Media using capital for every other group...and they never use European Americans but white with the little "w"..why is that if they view everything through race and ethnicity? A slur on white folks perhaps..a way to diminish certain Americans? If we are a multicultural and multi tribal country now..its capital European American when you address me.. (I'm kidding but pointing out the hypocrisy of the left)

  18. This is really a dumb idea. Worse than that, actually.

  19. Am I a homosexual? No, but I'm willing to learn.

  20. "No, really Mr. Goldberg, I'm gay, I swear!"

    (Slowly unzips pants) "OK prove it!"

  21. National Council of Jewish Women/LA..seriously? I get Jewish folks are often far left and as Michael Malice say "edgy in society" pushing the boundaries on traditional values but honestly this is hilarious. You can't make this up. Where is Larry David on this one...great story line for his comedic genius

    1. Nothing new here. The amici curiae that argued for the winning plaintiff in U.S. v. Windsor included:
      Anti–Defamation League, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, Hadassah: the Women's Zionist Organization of America, National Counsel of Jewish Women, Union for Reform Judaism, Women's League for Conservative Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism

      1. I recall in the 70's the Italian Defense Fund which was immediately attacked by the Jewish Defense Fund..hey get off our aggrievement land you mfer..ha ha

        I attended an eastern research university where about 40% of the kids were secular jews from NYC/LI. I will always remember my roommate who was Jewish tell me that all Jews had three things in common..they were secular, socialist and Zionist. For the most part in 40 years I can say he was right.

        1. all Jews had three things in common..they were secular, socialist and Zionist

          I've heard that there's been a significant drop-off in Zionism among American Jews (especially younger ones).

    2. Larry David is the sole person who funnily incorporated the Holocaust into his comedy.

      1. To be fair, Sara Silverman once described summer camp as "the second worst camp for Jews."

  22. I don’t see how they could possibly enforce that. You don’t even have to pretend to be gay or trans. You can be a man happily married to a woman, just tell them you’re bisexual and your statement is literally impossible to disprove.

  23. It would be nice if this were written from the perspective of, "Here is an example of continuing and harmful, invidious discrimination against straight cisgendered people that thankfully can be challenged under state law," rather than, "Here is an attempt to provide a benefit targeted toward an impoverished part of a local community that straight cisgendered people like myself can take away because it runs afoul of a technical rule that we otherwise don't care much about." Kind of like the ag subsidies for Black farmers.

    1. SimonP: "I support non-discrimination.

      Well, sometimes.

      Other times, discrimination is OK.

      I'll let you know when.

      Because I'm consistent!"

      1. Like I said - straights don't actually seem to feel harmed by LGBT favoritism in the same way that LGBT people are hurt by anti-LGBT discrimination. They just don't think it's fair.

        And maybe, under existing law, we're obliged to say it's not. The point is that it's not plausible to equate the putative harms of the two kinds of discrimination.

        1. Only because LGBYT people are more self centered and straights more indulgent. So there!

        2. When you are denied money, or a job, or admission to a university, because you are straight, or white, or male, or Asian, you are harmed.

          And the beneficiaries of AA are harmed too, because they are singled out for special, favorable treatment, and become dependent upon those doling out the favoritism. (Which the dolers consider a feature, not a bug.)

          1. It's not a standing question, BL.

            I, as a white person, may in some sense be "harmed" when an employer or school passes over me in favor of an equivalently-qualified but less white person. But I have ample alternative opportunities and a well-founded assurance that my race is not usually going to count against me; I'll be fine. When a non-white person is discriminated against on the basis of race, they do not have the same back-ups.

            This is not terrifically hard to understand. It's just a feigned obtuseness your kind likes to practice, so as to obfuscate debates and frustrate those with whom you disagree.

            1. "But I have ample alternative opportunities and a well-founded assurance that my race is not usually going to count against me; I'll be fine. When a non-white person is discriminated against on the basis of race, they do not have the same back-ups."

              What evidence do you have of either assertion? Other than your own self-serving speculation?

    2. Except that if they are impoverished, it is probably mostly because they have come to Hollywood to become rich and famous, and haven’t gotten there yet.

  24. Important message: EUGENE VOLOKH NEEDS TO DISCLOSE HIS SOURCES OF FUNDING. HE MAY BE TAKING BRIBES DIRECTLY FROM BIG TECH. HIS FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTISM VIEWS ENDANGER AMERICAN SOCIETY BY LETTING CYBERHARASSERS AND CYBERSTALKERS OFF THE HOOK AND LEAVING VICTIMS WITH NO RECOURSE FOR ONLINE ABUSE AND CRIMES.

    Eugene Volokh, you need to disclose your sources of funding. Right now, you have authored several papers under the funding of Google, that portray Google in a positive light, "concluding" that Google should enjoy First Amendment protections and have no regulation.

    See this paper here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2055364

    It clear states the paper was "commissioned by Google". This means you likely made money from Google for writing this paper. This taints your impartiality - of course you will conclude that Google should be free of regulation, if Google is paying you.

    You also vehemently support online harassment, oppose any regulation against regulating cyberharassment, doxing, and harassment. You NEED to DISCLOSE YOUR SOURCES OF FUNDING. I suspect you may be funded directly by Google and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), both of which oppose any regulation of the internet that would protect victims of online stalking, harassment, and abuse. Otherwise you may be bribed by Big Tech to purposely put out legal "analysis" that favors lack of regulation, and which harms victims of online harassment because they cannot get legal protection.

    Please disclose your sources of funding ASAP for the world to take you seriously.

    1. Tell the Dr. to up your meds.

  25. From the National Council of Jewish Women/LA website:

    "This program is the City of West Hollywood’s Pilot for Guaranteed Income in partnership with NCJW|LA and CGIR. The City is funding the administrative costs of the pilot (for the non-profit administrator and the research/evaluation). Funding for the cash disbursement is provided by two external sources: (1) Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative Innovation Measure H funds; and (2) a private donor."

    So two things...

    1. I wonder since the the city is funding the administrative costs only and not actually disbursing payments to the target group, if this eases the constitutional question.

    2. Even if we can answer Yes to my 1., the program probably still has a constitutional problem because, ". . . (f)unding for the cash disbursement is provided by two external sources: (1) Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative Innovation Measure H funds. . . ," which is a govt entity.

  26. If I identify as binary, do I get two payments?

  27. I wouldn’t want to be in the powder room when Justice Kagan fires the canons!

  28. I think the canon here comes straightforwardly from the proposition that sovereignty isn’t lightly waived.

    The principle applies even more strongly when one realizes it is the frderal government waiving someone else’s sovereignty, not their own. Traditionally the federal government acts in a sort of trust or fiduciary relationship to Indians, who have traditionally been regarded as a sort of dependent or ward. A guardian or fiduciary’s actions should not lightly be interpreted as dissipating the ward’s assets, at least not without a clear statement.

  29. Sorry, somehow clicked on wrong thread to comment on.

    On this one, would just point out that the traditional/conservative view that sex differences of this nature address behavior, not status, and also that they are addressed by rational basis, not heightened scrutiny, works in LAs favor.

    That which a government can prohibit, a government with different values can subsidize.

  30. Do they require proof of being LGBTQIA? If not, then simply claim to be bisexual and you're covered if you meet the other requirements. The sexual-orientation requirement is Unconstitutional but appears to be easily avoidable.

    1. Reminds me of a story that in a university they had sensitivity training required of freshmen, which included them stating they were gay.
      One student exclaimed, "I admit it! I am a male lesbian."

      1. Today, he'd get a full investigation by the sensitivity-enforcement office, possibly a suspension, and definitely a note in his permanent file. You do not joke about inclusion / diversity / sensitivity / etc.!

    2. George Costanza: "It moved."

  31. Anyone else play "Smear the Queer" as a kid?
    Nothing sexual, it was a form of football when you didn't have enough peoples or room for a regular game.

    1. Even millennials played smear the queer.

  32. Decent normal people must be forced to support the freaks and degenerates of the world.

  33. If your target is people who are less financially secure, you could target such people directly instead of using some imperfectly correlating characteristic. But of course, I realize that's crazy talk.

Please to post comments