Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:14 UTC
Legal

Tim Cook, in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal:

Apple's antidiscrimination policy goes beyond the legal protections U.S. workers currently enjoy under federal law, most notably because we prohibit discrimination against Apple's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. A bill now before the U.S. Senate would update those employment laws, at long last, to protect workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We urge senators to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and we challenge the House of Representatives to bring it to the floor for a vote.

It's hard to imagine for someone like me, from The Netherlands, but in the US, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have, in most states, far fewer rights than straight, non-transgender people. The LGBT community in the US still has a long fight ahead of itself, and large companies like Apple publicly urging Congress to address the archaic position of the LGBT community can only be seen as a good thing.

Most technology companies support the LGBT community's fight for equality, and considering the importance of this industry, that's a blessing.

Order by: Score:
Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:36 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Sadly, this doesn't have a chance of making it through the Republican controlled House.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by Morgan on Mon 4th Nov 2013 23:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually it does have a slim chance; the Republicans are still feeling the backlash from the failed attempt to bully the Democrats via government shutdown. The people in general felt that was a very, very stupid thing to do. With their careers already hanging by a thread, the House Republicans won't want to piss off a populace that is (thankfully) becoming more socially progressive as the years go by.

At least, that's my take on it. Then again, I'm a straight white guy from the Southeastern US, so what do I know?

Reply Score: 7

You've missed a key point
by roblearns on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:53 UTC
roblearns
Member since:
2010-09-13

You've stated things slightly wrong, and it is an important disctinction.

Straight people have no rights as a result of being straight in the United States.

So stating that gay and lesbian have fewer rights - is technically wrong. The straight community is de-facto facing less discrimination, but without extra rights being codified into law.

What has happened over the years is that groups that face discrimination are given rights - and groups that are perceived as not facing discrimination are not given rights. This does create bad policy at times.

For example, men cannot get the same leave for the birth of a child at many companies, that women get.

This is because men were never added to the group's receiving special protection.

What needs to happen is gay and lesbians do need protection from discrimination - but everyone needs to have equal treatment under the law. That's the only way to prevent discrimination from forever being an issue.

Why I can tell you right now I work at a company that gives daycare to mothers and does not for fathers.

This type of behavior really needs to end. Each group should not have to fight it out, year after year, trying to end discrimination.

Edited 2013-11-04 18:00 UTC

Reply Score: 14

RE: You've missed a key point
by abraxas on Mon 4th Nov 2013 19:43 UTC in reply to "You've missed a key point"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Straight people have no rights as a result of being straight in the United States.


Neither do gay people by this law or ANY law.

So stating that gay and lesbian have fewer rights - is technically wrong. The straight community is de-facto facing less discrimination, but without extra rights being codified into law.


ENDA and other non discrimination acts like it DO NOT grant ANYONE more rights than another person. This is simply wrong. It is just a guarantee that a minority group cannot be discriminated against by a majority group. Straight people are a majority, so are white people. They (we/I) do not need to be protected against the majority They (we/I) ARE THE MAJORITY. A big part of US law for the past 250 years is about protecting minority groups.

Why I can tell you right now I work at a company that gives daycare to mothers and does not for fathers.

This type of behavior really needs to end. Each group should not have to fight it out, year after year, trying to end discrimination.


This is a different issue and in fact the ERA amendment that is similar in nature to this act was defeated in the 70's would have probably made this practice illegal but people using your same logic defeated it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: You've missed a key point
by RshPL on Mon 4th Nov 2013 20:21 UTC in reply to "You've missed a key point"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

I as an employer need to have freedom to employ whoever I choose. If any law would force me to employ one person over another, wouldn't it be a tyranny? Please stop viewing employers as offenders, they need the same freedoms as the employees. "gay rights", "women rights" - these are all very ugly concepts. There are no gays, no women - just people! The same rights must apply. The employer needs to evaluate the skills and employ whoever fits better. Need human relations? Usually women do better. Need some muscle? Usually men.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: You've missed a key point
by Jbso on Mon 4th Nov 2013 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE: You've missed a key point"
Jbso Member since:
2013-01-05

You don't hire the usual woman or man, you hire a specific person. Assuming that individuals are more or less suited for a job because of what you imagine the typical person of their class, so to speak, is like is exactly the problem.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: You've missed a key point
by RshPL on Tue 5th Nov 2013 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You've missed a key point"
RE[2]: You've missed a key point
by JAlexoid on Mon 4th Nov 2013 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: You've missed a key point"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Technically - yes. But the point here is that you should not take into account person's gender of sexual orientation when it is irrelevant. Or to be precise, if you are looking for a person to do their job a black woman that can become pregnant is no more or less suited for the job than a reckless gay man. Therefore "I like his tie better than her skirt" should not be a reason to higher a less qualified person.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No. The issue is not about bigoted employers. The issue is with the interviewer, which in most of the cases is not the employer.
For example an HR person that is working in a company owned by a black person can have some serious preconceptions about black people that will be considered discriminatory.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: You've missed a key point
by RshPL on Tue 5th Nov 2013 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You've missed a key point"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

Actually how a person dresses is a perfect judgement of a certain character quality. Of course it depends on a job, but having a sense of style may be a required commodity. I believe it is not possible to construct a law which would be able to judge the employer's intent.

Reply Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You missed the point by a mile.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: You've missed a key point
by amadensor on Mon 4th Nov 2013 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE: You've missed a key point"
amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10

The part that many people miss here is that US laws are poorly written and enacted in a way that is counter productive. It is often the case that a less qualified person must be chosen because they are part of a protected class. If the law could be done in a way that would prevent discrimination while allowing the choice of the most qualified candidate regardless of whether or not the candidate is part of a protected class, that would be great. They haven't managed to do that yet.

Edited because my typing stinks.

Edited 2013-11-04 22:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

All men are created equal
by Lennie on Tue 5th Nov 2013 00:59 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

These kind of things always remind me of 'All men are created equal':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

Which makes me think: all white male are created equal.

As for example at the time he had thousands of slaves himself.

And it took more than 100 years after the abolishment of slavery before women could vote.

Reply Score: 7

RE: All men are created equal
by elektrik on Tue 5th Nov 2013 19:39 UTC in reply to "All men are created equal"
elektrik Member since:
2006-04-18


Which makes me think: all white male are created equal.


...cause this statement isn't discriminatory in and of itself either.... <rolls eyes>

Reply Score: 1

Americans with Disabilities Act
by tomz on Tue 5th Nov 2013 01:59 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

This backfired.

Before, Employers would often make accommodation and do what was reasonable to make things work, but that might mean moving the desk downstairs instead of reconstructing the entire building to add an elevator.

Once the act passed, hiring a disabled person was an invitation to a lawsuit. Since much hiring is subjective, they were found "to be missing a skill" or "not enough experience" or whatever.

There were also many "horror stories" where people claimed that some chemicals in their office were making them sick and demanded "clean rooms".

Skin color tends to be obvious and irrelevant. I don't know how I could tell someone is LGBT without THEM bringing sex into the workplace, and remember "Sexual Harassment" is also illegal and against the law.

In the USA, we are also supposed to have religious freedom and freedom of speech. Some religions consider homosexuality an abomination. So what happens if they must work across from each other and one has a picture of him/herself in a gay pride parade and the other has bible verses condemning such behavior, where each are equally offended?

Censor? Tell BOTH to tolerate? Or ignore completely the existing laws that prevent discrimination based on religion or creed because you personally are an atheist or agnostic so it doesn't affect you (no more than discrimination against LGBTs affects straights)?

I think it would be better for Tim Cook to have the ability to discriminate in the manner he wants, and for Chick-fil-A to discriminate in the manner they want.

Remember that government is force, violence. Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property. Is violence, force, and threats what "gay rights" is about?

The evil is advocating violence to get your way in the first place. Sanitized, indirect, done by proxies, and mainly intimidation.

Much like the "war on drugs" where SWAT teams break down doors to serve warrants - and occasionally kill innocents if they have the wrong address or something. But nothing can stop progressives from implementing their policies.

And now with the NSA we can all snoop and be even better at prosecuting thought crime.

Reply Score: 0

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Remember that government is force, violence.


I wish people would shut the hell up with this line.

Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property. Is violence, force, and threats what "gay rights" is about?


Guess what? Employers (and employees) who discriminate against gays are ALSO using violence and force, if we were to use your meaningless equivocation fallacy.

So the message is clear. It's not you're against force. It's that you're against other people limiting your use of force.

People like you are monarchs waiting to happen.

Reply Score: 7

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

How about this? All human interaction should be voluntary.


How about this? You're a fucking idiot. The world is becoming increasingly urbanized as people are moving off their farms and into cities.

Even people who stay out of the cities still have to interact with neighbours.

Having a pipe dream is not a solution to anything.

Human beings should not be forced to interact.


Human beings are forced to interact by circumstance. Live with it. And I'm saying this as a very solitary person. Even I have to understand this.

Both sides should agree. You're never going to FORCE a bigot to not be a bigot. If the employer is a jerk, DON'T WORK FOR HIM.


SOMETIMES THERE ISN'T A CHOICE. Must be nice of you to have a cushy life with your parents paying for everything and your education until you move out so that you can choose your employer.

Maybe not.

Like it or not, circumstances can be different to yours. You're not the "everyman" and the world doesn't revolve around you.

Reply Score: 5

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You don't seem to know what voluntary means. Idiot.


And what if someone forces another person to interact? How would you enforce the "voluntary interaction" rule that you've prescribed for all humanity?

Retard.

Reply Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

If I don't like my job, I am free to quit.

If I don't like where I live I am free to move.

If I don't like my neighbor I don't have to talk to him.


AND EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS IN YOUR EXACT SAME SITUATION.

The only way I'm forced to interact is if the government throws me in jail or charges me money if I don't.

Why do you think this is OK?


Do you drive on roads?

You are forced to interact due to the fact that other people drive on roads, cycle on roads, walk across roads. You are forced to interact long before the government enters into the equation.

And you seem to think money is some kind of universal phenomenon that has nothing to do with government. If there is no government, is your money worth anything? You use money, you already interact with the government. Any governing body is automatically a government, whether or not we name it that.

You're just making yourself out to be a spoiled brat who lives in their parents' basement where it's easy to talk about how free they think they have things.

Reply Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think it would be better for Tim Cook to have the ability to discriminate in the manner he wants, and for Chick-fil-A to discriminate in the manner they want.


So you would be ok to be discriminated against because of your opinions on, say, government?

Tell BOTH to tolerate?


Yes, obviously.

Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property.


Wut???

Edited 2013-11-05 07:44 UTC

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Before, Employers would often make accommodation and do what was reasonable to make things work, but that might mean moving the desk downstairs instead of reconstructing the entire building to add an elevator.

Unreasonable requirements and the intent of the law are not the same. There are plenty of heavy handed laws, just look at the laws that are the result of "the war on drugs".

I don't know how I could tell someone is LGBT without THEM bringing sex into the workplace, and remember "Sexual Harassment" is also illegal and against the law.

Oh.. So you're one of those unenlightened people that think that being gay is only about what you do in the bedroom. How about when your workplace has a social event where people's partners are invited? Would that be considered "them bringing sex into workplace"?(If so, wouldn't you mentioning your wife be the same?)

So what happens if they must work across from each other and one has a picture of him/herself in a gay pride parade and the other has bible verses condemning such behavior, where each are equally offended?

A: Your outdated assumption is that straight people don't attend Gay Pride events.
B: Freedom does not entitle you to feel comfortable and safe when looking at other people's personal space.
C: Gay Pride is no more offensive to highly conservative religious people than absolutely heterosexual Rio carnival.

Censor? Tell BOTH to tolerate? Or ignore completely the existing laws that prevent discrimination based on religion or creed because you personally are an atheist or agnostic so it doesn't affect you (no more than discrimination against LGBTs affects straights)?

I don't think that you understand what discrimination means.

Somehow "gay rights" has turned into meaning putting a gun to people's heads by proxy and saying if you have the wrong thoughts we will do violence to you or your property.

Last time I checked, Westboro Baptist Church is fine and well. And the CEO of Chick-Fill-A has not been forced to relinquish control of anything after his remarks. So please don't start pulling "facts" out of your a**.

Edited 2013-11-06 13:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

When the Apple board decide to dismiss Tim for his mind-numbing incompetence he can accuse them of discriminating against him simply because he is gay.

Reply Score: 1

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Why does Apple, or any other company need a law for them to hire gay people? They don't.


And this isn't about needing a law firm to hire gay people. You don't even understand what the fucking issue is.

Why is it necessary to enforce your morality on other people? If you were gay would you want to work for a boss that hates you but if forced to hire you do to this law?


Not all people can choose a job they want, you self-important prick.

The entire concept of legislating morality and forcing people to do things they don't want to do whether its right or wrong is stupid. If you don't like a companies hiring practices DONT'T WORK FOR THEM OR BUY STUFF FROM THEM.


Go on. Buy something that doesn't have parts made in, say, China.

Stop believing that you have absolute freedom of choice you retarded idiot.

Gay people ARE NOT at a disadvantage in employment


Yes they ARE. I CAN CAPITALIZE TOO.

and this law would NOT help if they were. All it would do is make bad, mean spirited employers resentful of their reluctant employees. And that's if they didn't find another reason to axe them.

YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY. Be it drug prohibition or employment discrimination. It doesn't work.


Yes you can.

You can legislate against child abuse.
You can legislate against animal abuse.
You can legislate against slavery.
You can legislate against theft.
You can legislate against murder and other bodily harm.
You can legislate against irresponsible driving.

Here's a hint:

The REAL world does not operate on ideology. People live in close proximity to each other and SHARE RESOURCES.

You're on a technology site. You should know about the issues of shared resources in computing. It's completely retarded that you would know about how, and the NEED, to make things thread safe, but then imagine that the real world somehow can easily compartmentalize and work in a complete vacuum with other systems/entities in the world.

Stop being so fucking stupid.

Reply Score: 6

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You are so wrong its nonsense. yes you can legislate against people beating children, this is a slightly different situation.


Says you.

You are trying to legislate feelings people have whether they be right or wrong. If an employer doesn't hire a gay person, can you really look into their heart and determine why? Its like a law banning disliking Unions. You can't make people be good. You can't change people's opinions by law.


We're not talking about a law banning employers beating gay people to death. That is a criminal offense. You are trying to ban ethereal thoughts and motives in hiring. The very concept is nonsense on its face.


No and no. That's not what the law in question does. You just have a stupid understanding of the law.

If employers don't want to hire gay people, they are only hurting themselves. Don't work for them. You shouldn't want to work for them. And if they were forced to hire you, you can bet you wont enjoy yourself working for them.


This isn't just about employers. This is also about other employees who may want to make other gay employees miserable.

But the fact of the matter is that in the final analysis its NOT going to help gays, and its going to make employers hesitant to hire people.


Two things wrong here: You did not provide facts. You did not provide an analysis. You provide slippery slope arguments and fear mongering and what-ifs and scenarios has not happened in other countries that already provide similar laws.

Employers already have to consider potential lawsuits when they hire any given person. You want to make that worse. You want to make people less employable.


Prove that it does. Where's your EVIDENCE that it makes people less employable. You keep telling us that it is, but that's not an argument.

Good work. Look at how progressive we are! Damn the facts and consequences! We are good people!


Why have human rights at all then?

You're going to tell me I'm wrong and evil and a bad person. But I don't hate gay people. I don't NOT want to hire gay people. I just see the real consequences of the Government deciding it can change people's minds and magically make stuff better by the stroke of a pen. If it were that easy the world would be perfect. Freedom of association is an important part of a functioning society. Let people, whoever they are, form relationships with others that WANT to.


What if someone forces another one to enter a relationship they don't want to? Who's going to enforce your "voluntarism" without then imposing an unwanted relationship on the person who is doing the forcing?

You haven't thought it through at all.

Reply Score: 4

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Economics and philosophy? Are you daft?

I have friends who have been poor, actually poor. People who have seen times when they were grateful to have any job whatsoever. People who are smarter and better educated than I am, who at times couldn't even pull in minimum wage. People whose work ethics and personal ethics put mine completely to shame, who were barely able to scrape by because they were screwed over by random circumstance.

Get out of your ivory tower, please.

Reply Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I can prove that all the progressive improvements have been counterproductive but you don't care. You don't care about reality you just care about feel good platitudes.

What!?!?!?! Are you going to tell us that labour unions were counter-productive? Are you going to tell all black people that the anti-discrimination laws were actually bad for them? Or maybe discrimination against Catholics(Irish) was a good thing?!?!?!

If you allow segregation, then the status quo is upheld for another generation. No matter what you segregate upon.

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If you think there are actually skilled people that can't get any sort of job, you are deluding yourself.

And I have no idea what world you live in. My friend works as a customer support manager at barely acceptable salary, with a degree in construction engineering from a prestigious university and 3 years of experience... because his industry crashed and burned that resulted in engineers with 20 years of experience out of a job. If anti-discrimination laws were not in place, he wouldn't be able to find work because of the "no Irish" signs.

Skilled people in an industry that is growing are not in the same situation as skilled people in an industry that has crashed or is in decline.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You are trying to legislate feelings people have whether they be right or wrong. If an employer doesn't hire a gay person, can you really look into their heart and determine why? Its like a law banning disliking Unions.


You must be suffering from some kind of comprehension disease. This law would only make it illegal to fire a person based on a certain attribute. We already have laws that ban certain actions based on religion, ethnicity and race. No law is going to force anyone like gays, blacks or christians. There are laws that make sure that you think twice before using religion and race as an argument why you should fire, not hire or refuse service to a certain person.

Reply Score: 4

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

Its a distinction without a difference.

Reply Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Ah... OK. So you're OK if you're told in an interview that you aren't getting hired because the colour of your eyes is not adequate for that office job.

Reply Score: 4

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

Well, the employer was stupid. You wan't to run for a company that mismanaged?

To work for a company that is FORCED to keep you on staff by law is not a fun thing. If they don't like you, let them run themselves into the ground with you far away.

Reply Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

HR people are not the people that I would work for. There is also the obvious example of mid to large companies that are not necessarily represented well by a single HR person that might bounce you for a reason that's irrelevant to your successful employment.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Gay people, on average, make more money than non-gay people.

Where did you get those statistics?!?!?!

If you were gay would you want to work for a boss that hates you but if forced to hire you do to this law?

Does a janitor get hired by all the shareholders of the publicly traded corporation, or the board of directors, or - at the very least - the CEO?
Small companies generally aren't effectively bound by these laws.
However it prevents the middle management in corporations from using their own belief systems when making hiring decisions. Imagine if Jack Andraka were not hired by a biotech company, because the HR person interviewing him thought that he was too feminine?

Reply Score: 4

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

CNN reported a Prudential survey that indicated openly gay people made on average $11,000 more than straights and had $4,000 less debt. At the time this was viewed as a GOOD thing.

Reply Score: 1

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

I should also add that the same survey indicated gays had nearly 1% lower unemployment than straight people. Look it up. Its there for all to see.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Not because the employers dislike gays but because they are concerned about lawsuits.

They are concerned about lawsuits as is. There is a reason why you don't get asked about your medical history in your regular interview. Adding sexual orientation does not add any more overhead than religion already has. In fact, I bet you don't find that belonging to any religion reduces your employability. And it's still on the books as a thing you can't discriminate against.

Reply Score: 4

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In fact, I bet you don't find that belonging to any religion reduces your employability.

Sikh?

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Gay people ARE NOT at a disadvantage in employment, and this law would NOT help if they were.

Not true. It's perfectly legal to deny employment to or fire anyone who has indicated that their partner is of the same sex.

Reply Score: 3

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

Perfectly legal is not the same thing as actually exists in a meaningful way.

Reply Score: 0

Meh
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 5th Nov 2013 09:56 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

Do you have to mark a checkbox about your sexual orientation when applying for a job in the US?

If not I think this whole thing could only be a giant PITA for employers ("you won't hire me? is it because i'm gay?!!1") and a new stream of money for lawyers (all dem lawsuits).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Meh
by kwan_e on Tue 5th Nov 2013 11:12 UTC in reply to "Meh"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Do you have to mark a checkbox about your sexual orientation when applying for a job in the US?


Just because it's not always an explicit thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Jeez, this is the kind of thing you normally only have to teach children.

If not I think this whole thing could only be a giant PITA for employers ("you won't hire me? is it because i'm gay?!!1") and a new stream of money for lawyers (all dem lawsuits).


Fuck all you people who imagine slippery slopes with every human rights thing.

Other countries already protect against this form of discrimination and employers there haven't all fucked off to another country. So how about stop making up stupid imaginary arguments?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Meh
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 5th Nov 2013 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh"
RE[3]: Meh
by kwan_e on Tue 5th Nov 2013 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Meh"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Jeez, this is the kind of thing you normally only have to teach children.


Careful there, you might fall off your moral high horse if it gets any higher ;)
"

I don't fucking care. People like you deserve to be mocked.

"Fuck all you people who imagine slippery slopes with every human rights thing.


You give people a tool (in this case an "lgbt card" to play), they're going to use it.
"

Except it HASN'T HAPPENED in countries where they have that card. There isn't a revolution.

The only tool people seem to be prepared to use is the "change is scary and has scary consequences so let's not bother" card.

Fear mongers like are worse than the actual result of the change.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Meh
by Ultimatebadass on Tue 5th Nov 2013 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Meh"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Sure, there will be no revolution. Just another bullshit regulation and maybe some occasional assholes to deal with. But hey! It looks awesome on paper so why not, right?

Carry on brave social justice warrior (btw, check out tumblr, they'll love you with all that Righteous Anger(TM)).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Meh
by kwan_e on Tue 5th Nov 2013 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Meh"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Sure, there will be no revolution. Just another bullshit regulation and maybe some occasional assholes to deal with. But hey! It looks awesome on paper so why not, right?


Your bullshit scenario HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Carry on brave social justice warrior (btw, check out tumblr, they'll love you with all that Righteous Anger(TM)).


Your bullshit scenario HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Meh
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Nov 2013 14:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Meh"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Just another bullshit regulation and maybe some occasional assholes to deal with.

It's the same one - the anti-discrimination law. The assholes will find a reason no matter what. This law would make sure that the asshole in power has less tools to be an asshole with.

In addition, law is not regulation.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Meh
by JAlexoid on Wed 6th Nov 2013 14:12 UTC in reply to "Meh"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Do you have to mark a checkbox about your sexual orientation when applying for a job in the US?

No, but you have to supply your spouse's details if you happen to live in a state that allows same-sex marriage.
Or you are invited to company social events that included partners in the invitation and the fact that your significant other happens to be of the same sex "leaks out".(But it seems that you have never been invited to company social events.)

Reply Score: 4

LALALALIBERTARIANISM
by Gullible Jones on Tue 5th Nov 2013 22:40 UTC
Gullible Jones
Member since:
2006-05-23

I HAVE MY FINGERS STUCK IN MY EARS AND I CANNOT HEAR YOU! YOUR HORROR STORIES MEAN NOTHING TO ME!

J/K. Like Thom, I am very, very glad to see popular support for this bill, even if the House will probably kill it.

I'm a bit disgusted by the ignoramus density here, though.

Reply Score: 6

v RE: LALALALIBERTARIANISM
by DrJohnnyFever on Wed 6th Nov 2013 00:38 UTC in reply to "LALALALIBERTARIANISM"
allanregistos
Member since:
2011-02-10

Most technology companies support the LGBT community's fight for equality, and considering the importance of this industry, that's a blessing.


LGBT rights. What are those?

I respect every human being because they are human beings. But I do not condone homo sexual practices in any of my immediate vicinity/area/company/etc. But it doesn't mean I won't hire people who were gays or lesbians as long as they are fit for the job, this is a perfect example of not discriminating people regardless of their gender identity. But if their behaviors will also trample MY RIGHTS as an owner of the company, then I will use my constitutional rights as a citizen of the republic to fire them. People can behave anything they want as long as I am not personally involve or my family(children) are not involve. It is their choice. So I am wondering if what is the meaning of these so-called LGBT rights.

Edited 2013-11-06 05:00 UTC

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So... If you were to hire a gay person without knowing(mostly that's the case, because I certainly hope you aren't asking if they are gay in an interview) and organise a colleagues and family event, would them coming to that even with their partner be a fireable offence?

LGBT rights are basic human rights that were framed by the moral constraints of religion. LGBT rights are same as black rights; that is, they are just named for the group that is most affected by limitations we put in place of basic human rights to be free and be whatever they want to be.

Reply Score: 4

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

So... If you were to hire a gay person without knowing(mostly that's the case, because I certainly hope you aren't asking if they are gay in an interview) and organise a colleagues and family event, would them coming to that even with their partner be a fireable offence?

If it is a company event, then company policies will apply, in as much as any incidents(like fist-fighting) will be a fireable offense. The point is you are not to step on someone's toes. What I am trying to say is even if it is a family or a company event, a gay will bring his partner, it is _not_ an offense per see.

LGBT rights are basic human rights that were framed by the moral constraints of religion.

What are those moral constraints of religion? I am a Christian myself, and I have no trouble giving rights to gay people when they need it. Except for sexual immorality.


LGBT rights are same as black rights; that is, they are just named for the group that is most affected by limitations we put in place of basic human rights to be free and be whatever they want to be.

Like marriage perhaps?

Reply Score: 1

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

I have to argue with you that LGBT rights are basic human rights. Before you jump down my throat let me explain. There are no special class of rights called "LGBT rights," there are simply "human rights." Whether a person is gay or not should be irrelevant. You may agree with me on this.

The fact is, however, that NOBODY, gay or not, has a right to a specific job. That is to say, my boss can fire me. Period. Your boss can fire you. Period. You also have the right to quit or work for someone else.

Rights can not be materially positive. You can't have a right to something someone else has. You have a right to acquire property, you do not have a right to be granted someone else's property, as an example.

By this I mean that any class of people has the same rights as any other class of people. I would have no problem with a gay employer firing me because I'm strait if they want to have a strictly gay workforce. That is their prerogative. Sure its a relatively unlikely scenario, at least at the moment, but the principle is the same. I'll go work for another company that likes me if that's the case. And like I've said before but nobody listens, there are loads of gay friendly companies out there to work for.

Edited 2013-11-07 07:15 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But I do not condone homo sexual practices in any of my immediate vicinity/area/company/etc.


So you would be a ok with hetero sex in the work place then?

Reply Score: 4

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

"But I do not condone homo sexual practices in any of my immediate vicinity/area/company/etc.


So you would be a ok with hetero sex in the work place then?
"
You misunderstood me. IN a work place it is obvious that any sexual practices are forbidden including both hetero/homo. I have worded it wrong though.

Reply Score: 2

No easy answers
by Alfman on Wed 6th Nov 2013 06:06 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

I'd like to ask everyone who opposes this legislation to clarify something for me.

1. Do you feel discrimination is wrong, yet oppose legislation because you feel employers rights to discriminate should outweigh the rights of those being discriminated against?

2. Or do you recognize discrimination is wrong, but oppose the legislation because the legislation would be ineffective?

3. Or do you oppose legislation because you don't think discrimination is wrong to begin with?

Edited 2013-11-06 06:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Anti Gay People Tend To be Losers
by DrJohnnyFever on Wed 6th Nov 2013 13:54 UTC
DrJohnnyFever
Member since:
2012-03-07

I'd also like to add that anti-gay people tend to be pretty backwards. They tend to be rednecks that drive rusted out trucks. They don't run major corporations. There are reasons for this relating to how intelligent they are etc. etc.

Companies hire people to make money. That's why they hire anybody. That's the only real motive. If a boss who is a smart guy and he has an openly gay man or woman sitting across from him and he's motivated by the fact that this person is going to make him money. HES GOING TO HIRE THEM. And if he doesn't hire them, they are handicapping themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot to spite their own stupidity.

Reply Score: 0

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Congratulations, you are falling for yet another dumb stereotype.

There are "country bumpkins" who are pro civil rights. There are also New England liberals who are as bigoted as anyone (though most of them wouldn't believe it themselves).

Also, we don't live in an ideal world where people always act out of rational self-interest.

Reply Score: 3

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

So we agree these employers would not be acting in their own self interest?

Then let them do the dumb thing, hurt themselves. And you can go work for any one of the other countless properly run, gay friendly employers.

The wonderful fact about life is that people don't always act in their rational self interest. That's the purpose of the market. If the employer are assholes work for someone else and the assholes are worse off for it.


If we want to extend the logic of this to where we have arrived at, you are saying the purpose of this law is to benefit bigoted employers who would otherwise have made bad business decisions. That is not what you want, trust me.


In the final analysis if we both agree that people don't act in their rational self interest all the time, then it just shows how right I am. There is a marketplace for a reason.

Reply Score: 0

Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

That sounds great, but doesn't mean a whole lot to people who lose their jobs due to others' irrational decisions. Especially if the economy sucks (because unregulated banks have been playing games with it) and they can't find a new one that pays a living wage (because minimum wage is too low to pay the bills and feed the family).

Look, I would love to believe that everything would just take care of itself if left alone. That's a wonderfully enticing idea. The problem is that reality is a lot messier than that. The universe is a kludge. Simple, intuitive solutions are not always correct. (c.f. every major discovery in physics since 1900.)

Free markets work wonderfully for some things, but not everything. One size does not fit all. Is that difficult to understand?

Reply Score: 4

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

If people can't make decisions for themselves that are on average the right thing to do, how can you possible expect them to pick a government that is doing the right thing ever?

Yes, if people and markets are so bad that nothing works, you can't possibly have democracy either. There is no rule that says any politician can make the right choices. In fact, government just makes making the wrong choices more dangerous, it amplifies the ramifications.

If Walmart or Google makes a bad choice, that's bad. If the Government makes a bad choice it can be truly horrifying. People can die, millions can be unemployed, the economy could fall apart...

If I am wrong, you are wrong. If we're both wrong, fuck life.

Reply Score: 0

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Gullible Jones,

"Free markets work wonderfully for some things, but not everything. One size does not fit all. Is that difficult to understand?"

Quite frankly, the "free market" cannot solve discrimination. The free market implicitly assumes equal opportunity (which is often false even in the normal economic contexts that it gets applied to). Those who are discriminated against will have inherently less opportunity *because* they're discriminated against.

How severe is this problem, to me that's the unknown factor? I've witnessed racial and gender discrimination at the workplace; It is uncomfortable even when you aren't the one being discriminated against. I cannot imagine how laws can make these places a comfortable work environment when bigotry is so ingrained into the corporate culture. Luckily this problem isn't too bad here in NY at least.

Edited 2013-11-06 18:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

DrJohnnyFever,

"Like I've said before, unemployment is lower among the openly gay and wages are higher too."

BTW it would have been good to provide a verifiable link for this.


"The free market does not implicitly assume anything."

The definition does not assume anything, it's just laissez fair. However those who trumpet the free market as a solution to social and/or economic issues (as you have) are indeed making implicit assumptions. The free market cannot solve these problems because it gives those already in power a highly unfair advantage over those struggling below.

It's like having a race where the "best" runners are given a mile advantage. Those starting behind might never come out ahead even if they are better than the winners. A significantly unfair advantage would even allow the winners to become complacent and unfit and then still win anyways. At least with sports we do attempt to be as fair as possible so that the best athletes do win (doping scandal's aside). But the "free market" by definition precludes such rules, which in turn makes unfair advantages highly exploitable.

Gullible Jones was right, the free market has it's place, but we already know exactly where it ends up when left entirely to it's own vices. We end up with monopolies that own absolutely everything, giving consumers no choices, and no viability for competitors. This is exactly why we've instituted antitrust and broken up corporations that owned entire markets. That was not because the government hates corporate freedom (believe it or not it's actually very pro-corporate), but because the free market failed to become competitive on it's own.

The point is that the free market is not the magic bullet for all problems. It's not going to solve discrimination in the future if it hasn't done so already.

It really sounds like your OK having employer discrimination assuming other employers exist who don't discriminate, is that a fair assessment of your opinion? Condoning wrongness on the basis that someone else isn't doing wrong... don't you think that's a slippery slope?

Reply Score: 4

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

The free market rewards those who make good choices and punishes those who will make a bad choice based on irrational prejudices. This is just how it works. There is no assumption, it is what it is.

The burden of proof is on you. The government is elected by the class of idiots you seem to think can't run their own lives. How can you assume the moves of the government are correct? How can you assume a law or regulation that on its face appears to be positive but certainly has unanticipated and potentially harmful effects?

The government amplifies mistakes. This is a a necessary consequence of centralized power. Its not just me saying this. It is the reason why nearly everyone agrees we need to have a limited government in one way or another. We obviously wouldn't support a government that tells us how to live our lives in every conceivable detail even if it were right most of the time.

You know how to use Google. Look up the statistics on gay employment. You're capable of checking things if you find it so hard to believe. These aren't secrets, they are widely published facts. Find a source you trust and read the details.

People criticize the free market as being incapable of doing all sorts of things. Nobody can point to an example of a free market failing as the government has its hands so deep into everything you can't tell what causes what. All we can go on is logic. I still don't understand how we can argue about gay employment being in such a crisis when there are clearly gay friendly companies to work for (such as Apple, the topic of the article here) and nobody can tell me why they would want to work for an anti-gay company!

Let the market work! Stay away from anti-gay employers! If you're gay, let those companies suffer the loss of your labor!

Its so rational I don't see the issue. I also want to point out I'm not the one here posting about "disapproving of homosexual behavior in the workplace" and other nonsense. I'm neutral on sexuality completely. I have many gay friends who 100% agree with me on these issues. There is no monopoly of opinion in the gay community. At gay pride in Minneapolis, the Libertarians and anarcho-capitalist leaning groups were quite popular.

Anyway. Someone explain to me why A) they want to work for an anti-gay employer and B) how it will be helpful for them to support anti-gay employers by giving them their labor when the anti-gay employer could suffer by losing that labor and C) whether all that is worth the possibility of a company not hiring an openly gay person not because they are anti-gay but are in fear of lawsuits under this law if the gay employee ever gets fired for an unrelated reason. aka the chilling effect.

Reply Score: 0

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

I'd also like to add that anti-gay people tend to be pretty backwards. They tend to be rednecks that drive rusted out trucks.

It could be argued otherwise.

Reply Score: 1

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

I think that if you look at the vast majority of successful people, they are pretty tolerant on the whole. People don't become successful by hating people. We all have our horror stories about specific incidents, but the fact of the matter is that most top companies support gays and part of the reason why is because it is helpful to the company to do so.

Reply Score: 0

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

I think that if you look at the vast majority of successful people, they are pretty tolerant on the whole. People don't become successful by hating people. We all have our horror stories about specific incidents, but the fact of the matter is that most top companies support gays and part of the reason why is because it is helpful to the company to do so.


I don't have the statistics. So I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, some pro-homo people are intolerant towards religion specially Christianity. And these same people must have been concerned for Christians in Egypt, Syria, and Iran because not only these Christians were being discriminated but they were killed and persecuted today?

I myself a Christian and is not in any way supports same sex marriage or any of that, since I have the right to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. You support same sex marriage? That is your right and choice. There are so many harmful effects of allowing same sex marriage as even that some gay people are opposing it.

Being tolerant doesn't mean you are now tolerant by default for specific LGBT rights, as I argued all along. We can give to any human beings their basic human rights as long as they need them, but for their private practices we do have different interpretations for them, depending on how we grew up, beliefs and many several factors. Where relationship with your parents is the major factor of how you view/interpret things in you world as stated by experts on this subject(FAMILY).

Reply Score: 2

DrJohnnyFever Member since:
2012-03-07

My response is that I don't believe in gay marriage. i don't believe in straight marriage.

The problem with all these view points is that we are trying to force them on others. Conservative Christians want the law to ban gay marriage. Liberal gays want to law to permit gay marriage. All sides seem to want a society to adopt their position as a single, true, correct position.

The fact of the matter is that none of these relationships should have anything to do with "greater society." Marriage between individuals should have NOTHING to do with government. If gays want to get married it has nothing to do with you. If you want to get married it has nothing to do with them.

The only correct position is to 'privatize' marriage. Let gay friendly churches marry gays, Let non-gay friendly churches marry straits. Let some churches marry both. Let non-religious people get married with a contract and a lawyer.


This is the only correct, non-coercive, position. I personally think people that think the government has a role in these matters to have somewhat authoritarian tendencies. These people aren't content with their own opinions, they are only content if everyone else is forced, by law, to follow them. That sort of world view, in my opinion, is despicable.

I apply the same standard to employment. Private business owners run a business how they want, it is their property. Nobody has a right to it, they have to reach an agreement with the employer to work for them. let gay friendly employers hire gays, if some anti-gay companies want to work against their best interests, let them. I'm a heavy person. I wouldn't want to work for an employer that hates fat people. I don't seek employment at a company that dislikes fat people. If you want to have a company run exactly the way you want it to run, rather than trying to pass laws to force companies to act against their will, start your own business. (the Government makes this difficult I might add).

The rational argument against what I'm saying is that society as a whole hates gay people, and gay people are disproportionately unemployed and poor. Well as I have indicated before this is simply not the case, the data shows quite the opposite. The market works when allowed to. Freedom works. People form relationships voluntarily without government. All sides can be quite content with their views, even when you think some are wrong. People just need to learn to live with the fact that some people are never going to like them, they are never going to have the same moral compass. Who cares? Don't associate with those people. I don't care which side you're on.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course the government has a role, it gives certain privileges and benefits to married couples.

Reply Score: 2

Thinking about things
by DrJohnnyFever on Wed 6th Nov 2013 15:44 UTC
DrJohnnyFever
Member since:
2012-03-07

I love how when I point out the flaw in latching on to shallow platitudes, and that you may actually be working against yourself, nobody has the brain pan to actually consider what I'm saying but instead just buries my comments so they can go home feeling good about themselves.

When people get together with like minds to the extent that they do, they behave like bobble heads. Nobody considers anything new. They just soak up the echo chamber.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 8th Nov 2013 06:39 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

It's hard to imagine for someone like me, from The Netherlands, but in the US, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have, in most states, far fewer rights than straight, non-transgender people.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from unless you're making assumptions based on several states not allowing same-sex marriage. Even in that case, same-sex couples still retain most (if not all) of the same benefits as "domestic partners". The US Supreme Court has already ruled part of DOMA to be unconstitutional, and it's likely DOMA will be repealed altogether. To say that LGBT people have far fewer rights than straight non-transgender is simply not true.

Reply Score: 2