Gay Rights
Discrimination against people because of what group they belong to is, in the general sense, wrong.
However, it is also wrong to tell people that such discrimination is illegal. If I want to be a jerk and discriminate, it is my right to do so, and it is your right to avoid my place of business.
However, because of a serious problem of past injustices in society, there's room for a temporary remedy of making discrimination against people in certain groups illegal, especially, but not limited to, blacks and women.
However, that does not mean the proper remedy for resolving all problems of discrimination is to make that discrimination illegal.
So, I am therefore opposed to anti-discrimination laws regarding homosexuals (and so on). I do not believe there is sufficient need for a law to solve the problems of discrimination against gays, when it can be more properly addressed through other means, including protesting and so on.
That said, I am open to consideration of the idea. If it can be shown to me that the problem is so serious, the injustices on a society-wide basis so severe, that a law against it is the only feasible remedy, then I may change my mind.
However, none of that has anything to do with why I am absolutely against the new law in Washington, H.B. 2661. This bill adds to the list of protected characteristics of people -- characteristics you may not discriminate against in employment or housing etc., which currently includes sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, and disabilities -- "sexual orientation."
At first glance, apart from my prior objection that I don't feel it is warranted, this is not a big deal. It does not apply to sectarian organizations, so in theory, few people would be affected by it anyway. You just can't discriminate against someone because they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. No big deal.
But the devil is in the details. So we have to look up our definitions:
I am not saying I should be able to cause harm to Buck, but I don't want to scare my customers away either. Under previous laws, I could reject him simply because I thought it was not good for my business. But under this law, "what is not good for my business" is indistinguishable from his "gender expression," which is now protected by law.
This bill opens me up to serious liability if I discriminate against Buck. There's no indication in the text of the law that I would not be violating the law by discriminating against him, and there's no indication from our state courts that they would find in my favor.
Of course, in a restaurant, I could simply impose a dress code on all employees: slacks for everyone, no makeup. But that doesn't take care of his falsetto, walk, and gestures. He is going to scare away my customers, and there's not a damned thing I can do about it.
Call me a bigot if you want to, but I am against this bill, and I am signing the petition to overturn it, and will encourage everyone else in Washington to do so.
However, it is also wrong to tell people that such discrimination is illegal. If I want to be a jerk and discriminate, it is my right to do so, and it is your right to avoid my place of business.
However, because of a serious problem of past injustices in society, there's room for a temporary remedy of making discrimination against people in certain groups illegal, especially, but not limited to, blacks and women.
However, that does not mean the proper remedy for resolving all problems of discrimination is to make that discrimination illegal.
So, I am therefore opposed to anti-discrimination laws regarding homosexuals (and so on). I do not believe there is sufficient need for a law to solve the problems of discrimination against gays, when it can be more properly addressed through other means, including protesting and so on.
That said, I am open to consideration of the idea. If it can be shown to me that the problem is so serious, the injustices on a society-wide basis so severe, that a law against it is the only feasible remedy, then I may change my mind.
However, none of that has anything to do with why I am absolutely against the new law in Washington, H.B. 2661. This bill adds to the list of protected characteristics of people -- characteristics you may not discriminate against in employment or housing etc., which currently includes sex, race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, and disabilities -- "sexual orientation."
At first glance, apart from my prior objection that I don't feel it is warranted, this is not a big deal. It does not apply to sectarian organizations, so in theory, few people would be affected by it anyway. You just can't discriminate against someone because they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. No big deal.
But the devil is in the details. So we have to look up our definitions:
"Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity.OK, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, I'm with you. Wait ... what the hell is "gender expression or identity"?
As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.So here's where the train goes off the tracks. I am not going to not-hire a waiter because they are gay, but I sure as hell am going to not hire a 6-2, 250-pound man named Buck who wears a dress and lipstick, talks with a falsetto, and has an extremely effeminate walk and gestures.
I am not saying I should be able to cause harm to Buck, but I don't want to scare my customers away either. Under previous laws, I could reject him simply because I thought it was not good for my business. But under this law, "what is not good for my business" is indistinguishable from his "gender expression," which is now protected by law.
This bill opens me up to serious liability if I discriminate against Buck. There's no indication in the text of the law that I would not be violating the law by discriminating against him, and there's no indication from our state courts that they would find in my favor.
Of course, in a restaurant, I could simply impose a dress code on all employees: slacks for everyone, no makeup. But that doesn't take care of his falsetto, walk, and gestures. He is going to scare away my customers, and there's not a damned thing I can do about it.
Call me a bigot if you want to, but I am against this bill, and I am signing the petition to overturn it, and will encourage everyone else in Washington to do so.
Now Playing: Johnny Cash - Sam Hall
1 Comments
Leave a comment
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
I think what you are forgetting is that most tranny's will respect the fact that you are running a business and will try to cut back on their feminity or vise versa.