The Difference of Gay Discrimination

[awediot]

The thing that makes our fight for rights and respect, equality and to be treated just like any other sinner, is that we pose a moral conflict because exactly where our "choice" comes into play is unclear (even to many of us). Women, blacks, foreigners, short, disabled and challenged people, do not have any say in the characteristic which they have been discriminated for... There is no moral uncertainty about them.

The same is not true of us... A black person has never been kicked out of their home when their parents discovered their African heritage...

Now, WE know we were never even presented with a choice of which gender we prefer to be attracted to (bisexuals excluded). But unless you're in our shoes, THEY do not know this (though more Christians are coming around to understanding that we didn't choose this life and that a gay orientation is not inherently sinful)...That BEING gay, and DOING gay things, gets blurry even to us, isn't helped by the slippery reality that people can indeed choose to DO gay things and self-identify as a homosexual who chose it (though it is probably an experimental or rebellious phase) None of these overlapping complications effected the civil rights struggle of other minorities...


Generally, we can discriminate against those who have chosen their "group" which sets them apart as a minority. We can and do, and sometimes should be leery and discriminating toward certain religions, belief systems and chosen activities... But it is unacceptable to be so toward those who have no "CHOICE" in the cards God has dealt them...(that word again)

These are things even we as a community who are living them, debate and disagree over... We need to admit and address the confusion it is causing those who can only speculate about just what is going on in our minds... It'd help if we knew for sure.

[Alecto]

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think the argument over choice is the biggest red-herring ever, and that we the gay community have swallowed it whole.
It's a religious rule that for one season, Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays. Some people think it's wrong to do so, immoral even because it goes against what God wants. Which is fine and dandy, but there's no LAWS enforcing that. Furthermore, I think there's very few acceptable times (and that it's not entirely acceptable to society as well) to discriminate against people of other religions.
Ultimately, like religion, even if my sexuality were a choice (it isn't for me, but I think it's arrogant of me to say that it isn't for anyone), it's a choice I should be allowed to make.

[awediot]

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think the argument over choice is the biggest red-herring ever, and that we the gay community have swallowed it whole.
It's a religious rule that for one season, Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays. Some people think it's wrong to do so, immoral even because it goes against what God wants. Which is fine and dandy, but there's no LAWS enforcing that. Furthermore, I think there's very few acceptable times (and that it's not entirely acceptable to society as well) to discriminate against people of other religions.
Ultimately, like religion, even if my sexuality were a choice (it isn't for me, but I think it's arrogant of me to say that it isn't for anyone), it's a choice I should be allowed to make.
You are allowed to make such a choice (theoretically). Why aren't people allowed to respond to it as they see fit?

[Rick336]

...That BEING gay, and DOING gay things, gets blurry even to us.....

I agree. I used to think that any man who puts white carpet in his home is definitely gay.

But then I met a straight guy who had white carpet in his home and reality became very blurry. So blurry in fact, that I tripped over his toy poodle and spilled beer on his Judy Garland DVD collection. His scream broke glass.

Rick

[awediot]

I agree. I used to think that any man who puts white carpet in his home is definitely gay.

But then I met a straight guy who had white carpet in his home and reality became very blurry. So blurry in fact, that I tripped over his toy poodle and spilled beer on his Judy Garland DVD collection. His scream broke glass.

Rick

Indeed... He did not choose to prefer white carpet, but he did decide to put it in...

[Gennee]

Preconceived notions often does lead to misunderstanding and confusion. I remember that if you wore pink or purple you were considered gay, even if you were not. I wear both colors because I like them.

I didn't have a choice of being born transgender. However, I did have a choice as to whether to accept or deny that I was transgender. Choice also involves risk and consequences. I may lose friends, opportunities, suffer ridicule, and be vilified-all things I have no control over. I do have a choice as whether or not I want to be a victim (which I'm not) or brow beaten into submission (which I refuse). Thirty seven years ago I had the choice as to whether or not to let Jesus come into my life (I choose to let him). Whatever choice I made there would have been consequences.

In my mind, no one has the right to determine how someone else should live. I have spent the past year or two encouraging folks who feel defeated or beaten down or confused or whatever. I have experienced discrimination and seen other be discriminated against. This is something I do not tolerate.

Gennee

[Alecto]

You are allowed to make such a choice (theoretically). Why aren't people allowed to respond to it as they see fit?

Evidently, I'm not allowed to make that choice and still be eligible for employment, or housing. And, I'll remind you, it was only 2001 that the supreme court said that I did in fact have that choice. It's not just taken for granted that I am allowed; theoretically speaking, it's a recent development, and the more people are allowed to push us to the fringes, the more they'll fight to take that away again too.

[bnmoore]

Preconceived notions often does lead to misunderstanding and confusion. I remember that if you wore pink or purple you were considered gay, even if you were not. I wear both colors because I like them.
Gennee

I feel that. I'm very fair skinned (Irish Ancestry). I seem to get more compliments when I wear pastels. I don't look as pale. Love the lavender and pink.

Ben N. Moore

[awediot]

Preconceived notions often does lead to misunderstanding and confusion. I remember that if you wore pink or purple you were considered gay, even if you were not. I wear both colors because I like them.

I didn't have a choice of being born transgender. However, I did have a choice as to whether to accept or deny that I was transgender. Choice also involves risk and consequences. I may lose friends, opportunities, suffer ridicule, and be vilified-all things I have no control over. I do have a choice as whether or not I want to be a victim (which I'm not) or brow beaten into submission (which I refuse). Thirty seven years ago I had the choice as to whether or not to let Jesus come into my life (I choose to let him). Whatever choice I made there would have been consequences.

In my mind, no one has the right to determine how someone else should live. I have spent the past year or two encouraging folks who feel defeated or beaten down or confused or whatever. I have experienced discrimination and seen other be discriminated against. This is something I do not tolerate.

Gennee

Do you tolerate discrimination against those who discriminate? White supremacist? Child molesters? Rapists? Does society at large have a right to either determine how they live and conduct themselves, or a duty to lock them up for the greater good?

Discrimination is not an evil concept in itself. How it plays out may or may not be. We can't just chuck the whole shebang. It is unrealistic and quite impossible.

[awediot]

Evidently, I'm not allowed to make that choice and still be eligible for employment, or housing. And, I'll remind you, it was only 2001 that the supreme court said that I did in fact have that choice. It's not just taken for granted that I am allowed; theoretically speaking, it's a recent development, and the more people are allowed to push us to the fringes, the more they'll fight to take that away again too.

When have people ever been unable to choose to do gay things?

[Rick336]

Do you tolerate discrimination against those who discriminate? White supremacist? Child molesters? Rapists? Does society at large have a right to either determine how they live and conduct themselves, or a duty to lock them up for the greater good?

Of course society has a right to determine how the above groups conduct their lives if that conduct takes advantage of the innocent. It's not a matter of discrimination. It's a matter of protecting society. That's why we have laws against hate crime violence, child molestation, and rape.

Rick

[awediot]

Of course society has a right to determine how the above groups conduct their lives if that conduct takes advantage of the innocent. It's not a matter of discrimination. It's a matter of protecting society. That's why we have laws against hate crime violence, child molestation, and rape.

Rick

If you choose not to hire an otherwise qualified kkk member, that is discrimination.

[Rick336]

If you choose not to hire an otherwise qualified kkk member, that is discrimination.

If the particular KKK group that this applicant was a member of had a history of promoting violence against minorities, then his employment may be a risk to his minority co-workers.

If not, and he had a clean record and was better qualified than the other applicants, I see no reason to discriminate.

Rick

[awediot]

If the particular KKK group that this applicant was a member of had a history of promoting violence against minorities, then his employment may be a risk to his minority co-workers.

If not, and he had a clean record and was better qualified than the other applicants, I see no reason to discriminate.

Rick

He's a luke warm supremacist who hates blacks, Jews and queers, but treats them decently enough to "pass", and is waiting for God to wipe them out... Would you hire him?

[Rick336]

He's a luke warm supremacist who hates blacks, Jews and queers, but treats them decently enough to "pass", and is waiting for God to wipe them out... Would you hire him?

If he was a hard worker, showed up on time every day, didn't miss a lot of work, didn't steal supplies, was respectful to his co-workers......then yes.

Keep in mind that your description fits about a quarter of the US population.

Rick

[awediot]

If he was a hard worker, showed up on time every day, didn't miss a lot of work, didn't steal supplies, was respectful to his co-workers......then yes.

Rick

Then you are a better man than I. I wouldn't hire an open and proud bigot because I find their personal philosophy rather vile and would not want to expose my other employees and customers to it, nor give the impression I support it...but to each their own.

Would you hire someone who preached gays were sinners and opposed gay marriage off the clock?

[Rick336]

Would you hire someone who preached gays were sinners and opposed gay marriage off the clock?

If I didn't then I would be as much of a bigot as he was.

Rick

[awediot]

If I didn't then I would be as much of a bigot as he was.

Rick

So honestly, you would hire some one who stands for everything you are fighting and oppose? You would pay their way?

[Rick336]

So honestly, you would hire some one who stands for everything you are fighting and oppose? You would pay their way?

Yes. That's what fairness and equality is all about.

Rick

[awediot]

Yes. That's what fairness and equality is all about.

Rick

Then why gripe? If they've as much right to push their moral laws as you do, and you support them equally, what ground do you have to stand on to claim you are right?

There are certain "types" of people I'd not only NEVER support or hire, but actively oppose...That is life in this imperfect world.

[Alecto]

When have people ever been unable to choose to do gay things?

I should have been more specific: when I say "allowed" and "able", I mean legally, without fear of repercussion from the government and law. Social repercussions are always gonna be around, and I get that. (THAT's where true dialogue comes in to minimize it, but it's still always going to be there). But when I'm paying the same taxes as all my friends for half the rights? Not ok.

[awediot]

I should have been more specific: when I say "allowed" and "able", I mean legally, without fear of repercussion from the government and law. Social repercussions are always gonna be around, and I get that. (THAT's where true dialogue comes in to minimize it, but it's still always going to be there). But when I'm paying the same taxes as all my friends for half the rights? Not ok.

Okay...Thanks (and sorry; I like digging into words at times)...

"Social repercussions" can and do and always will spill over into not only new laws, but in how they are enforced...I happen to believe a private business should be able to refuse to hire, or fire someone because they are gay.

Or black, or a Jew, a woman, a bigot, a racist...a person I've good reason to deem dangerous and not want to be around or associated with that closely.

Think of it as being discriminating... That used to be a good thing and had nothing to do prejudice... We might make that aspect of it a little illegal too, on the way...before we know it.

What we do and don't allow, even encourage discrimination against, gets important...

[Rick336]

Then why gripe? If they've as much right to push their moral laws as you do, and you support them equally, what ground do you have to stand on to claim you are right?

The ground that I have to stand on is my belief that all men are created equal. It's obvious that I don't support the views of those who hate us. But I do support their right to those views. That's how freedom works.

There are certain "types" of people I'd not only NEVER support or hire, but actively oppose...That is life in this imperfect world.

I understand what you mean. If I ran a day care for children, I would not hire a convicted child molester for obvious reasons. His past criminal record would be too great of a risk and the stigma would cost me my business. Plus, a child molestation conviction puts his mental and emotional health into question.

If I owned a business in California, would I hire a person who helped organize the campaign to support Prop 8? That would depend on their criminal record, background, qualifications, skills, education, dependability, and how well they work with others.

I think to deny someone employment for no other reason than because their views of the world don't match mine would be very unfair.

Rick

[bnmoore]

Then why gripe? If they've as much right to push their moral laws as you do, and you support them equally, what ground do you have to stand on to claim you are right?

There are certain "types" of people I'd not only NEVER support or hire, but actively oppose...That is life in this imperfect world.

The corporation I work for has Corporate Rules of Conduct as well as Standards and Practices. All employees have to take a "Building Respect in the Workplace" class. We also have a fairly good H.R department. I work in television with people from all over the planet. If someone is creating a hostile work environment they usually don't last very long. If it progresses from a verbal warning it escalates to hitting them in the pocket book through un-paid suspension. If they get annoyed enough by that they will usually leave on their own or sue which often gets more expensive for them. If they still think they're 'right' they can go be 'right' someplace else.

Ben N. Moore

[awediot]

If they still think they're 'right' they can go be 'right' someplace else.

Ben N. Moore

Who generally speaking doesn't think they are right?

[awediot]

The ground that I have to stand on is my belief that all men are created equal. It's obvious that I don't support the views of those who hate us. But I do support their right to those views. That's how freedom works.

True, but I'm having a hard time believing you'd hire someone who thinks God hates you and you are out to drag as many American families to hell with you as you can... You'd have to be sorta nuts.



I understand what you mean. If I ran a day care for children, I would not hire a convicted child molester for obvious reasons. His past criminal record would be too great of a risk and the stigma would cost me my business. Plus, a child molestation conviction puts his mental and emotional health into question.

If I owned a business in California, would I hire a person who helped organize the campaign to support Prop 8? That would depend on their criminal record, background, qualifications, skills, education, dependability, and how well they work with others.

I think to deny someone employment for no other reason than because their views of the world don't match mine would be very unfair.

Rick
I'm not talking about those with different views. I'm talking about those with diametrically opposed, if not down right dangerous ones.

Point is we all discriminate. And MUST... The solution is not to deny it, but to learn to hone it into a valid and edifying tool.

[Rick336]

True, but I'm having a hard time believing you'd hire someone who thinks God hates you and you are out to drag as many American families to hell with you as you can... You'd have to be sorta nuts.

If I'm openly gay and I hire them, not because of their beliefs, but because of their value as a good employee and I treat them with respect and fairness... there's a good chance they will see that my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my values and good character.

I'm not talking about those with different views. I'm talking about those with diametrically opposed, if not down right dangerous ones.

I'd have to know what kind of dangerous threat they are.

Believe me, I know that it's not easy to respect those who hate us. I sometimes find myself saying some nasty things out of anger about our opponents. Just this week I referred to them as "airheads," which I later regretted. I'm human so I screw up a lot.

But the problem is that when I hate the hater then I also become a hater too. It's like the so called "enlightened" liberals who have no problems referring to white Southerners who live in mobile homes as "trailer trash." The "enlightened" liberals subconsciously justify their hate because, after all, "trailer trash" are nothing but "ignorant inbred bigots."

They hate the hater. And sometimes we all do that. But it's really all about fear, isn't it? We fear each other so we hate each other. If we stop fearing each other then chances are the hate will also cease.

Am I right about this?

This all takes me back to that song from the the Sixties with the words.....

Love is but the song we sing,
And fear's the way we die
You can make the mountains ring
Or make the angels cry
Know the dove is on the wing
And you need not know why

Come on people now,
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try and love one another right now

If you hear the song I sing,
You must understand
You hold the key to love and fear
All in your trembling hand
Just one key unlocks them both
It's there at your command

Come on people now,
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try and love one another right now
Right now
Right now!


It's not as easy as the song makes it sound. But maybe it's worth a try.

Below is from another post on this forum about love that also fits here:

Be the love you seek.

Lastly- the Golden Rule teaches us to treat others as we would have them treat us- which sounds like love/compassion to me. And the above has been - for me anyway- as about the most sane way one can go about it.


Rick

[awediot]

If I'm openly gay and I hire them, not because of their beliefs, but because of their value as a good employee and I treat them with respect and fairness... there's a good chance they will see that my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my values and good character.

I get the principle and goal, but I still doubt the vast majority of people would actually hire someone to make a philosophical point to them.

I'd have to know what kind of dangerous threat they are.I'm just talking in general to make a point...

Believe me, I know that it's not easy to respect those who hate us. I sometimes find myself saying some nasty things out of anger about our opponents. Just this week I referred to them as "airheads," which I later regretted. I'm human so I screw up a lot.

But the problem is that when I hate the hater then I also become a hater too. It's like the so called "enlightened" liberals who have no problems referring to white Southerners who live in mobile homes as "trailer trash." The "enlightened" liberals subconsciously justify their hate because, after all, "trailer trash" are nothing but "ignorant inbred bigots."

They hate the hater. And sometimes we all do that. But it's really all about fear, isn't it? We fear each other so we hate each other. If we stop fearing each other then chances are the hate will also cease.

Am I right about this?err, yes and no, IMO. From even a biological, instinctual level, 'fear' is the natural reaction to being able to anticipate pain. It is self-preservative, unfortunate, but required, and lets us simply avoid and reduce "danger" in many of it's forms. To eliminate the fear before the danger is gone is foolish. (like eliminating the guilt before the sin). -While certainly some fears are ill-founded, and we can manipulate them to some pretty wicked ends on each other, we should shed them carefully and some, only with much thought... A few, we will carry to the grave.

When we pity those who are nasty enough to tempt us to actually hate them, knowing what a miserable life and person that takes, we can then love them anyway... I feel for people...We all know what one another is basically going through, and I have a collective pity for all us. The more, the worse you are...Life is a bitch sometimes. I adore the soul stuff we are all made of, admire the the shared human struggle I see in you regardless, and that makes me love absolutely all you.

[tdogg]

I get the principle and goal, but I still doubt the vast majority of people would actually hire someone to make a philosophical point to them.


You missed the point here. I do not believe Rick was saying he would hire someone to make a philosophical point. He was indicating the if the candidate appeared to be an excellent employee, he would not avoid hiring him just because personal beliefs were not in agreement. I did not get out of Rick's posts that he was saying he would hire someone just to make a statement.

I think Rick is spot on. I've hired several employees. A couple of them are devout Christians and although I'm out and proud at work, and they have supported me in some ways, I truly could not say how they voted on Prop 8. I don't ask about their religious or personal views on issues, I ask them job-related questions and simultaneously try to get an idea of how their personality will work on the team and how they would be for me to supervise.

If an applicant was anti-gay and voted yes on Prop 8, I would likely never know it until they were working for me. Then I would put aside any differences, treat them fairly as I do all my employees and continue being the person I am. Perhaps we could talk about it (or not - government environment doesn't always allow for open discussions on hot topics). If the person had a major problem working for a gay supervisor, they would probably look for another job.

The main point I got from Rick is, if we want to be treated fairly and equally, then we must also treat others the same. It's the Golden Rule principle - that so many have forgotten - and it applies to both sides of the equality struggle. However, in my personal experiences I see it mainly applied by GLBT and allies. It's been that way throughout the entire "Prop 8 era".

[awediot]

You missed the point here. I do not believe Rick was saying he would hire someone to make a philosophical point. He was indicating the if the candidate appeared to be an excellent employee, he would not avoid hiring him just because personal beliefs were not in agreement. I did not get out of Rick's posts that he was saying he would hire someone just to make a statement.

I think Rick is spot on. I've hired several employees. A couple of them are devout Christians and although I'm out and proud at work, and they have supported me in some ways, I truly could not say how they voted on Prop 8. I don't ask about their religious or personal views on issues, I ask them job-related questions and simultaneously try to get an idea of how their personality will work on the team and how they would be for me to supervise.

If an applicant was anti-gay and voted yes on Prop 8, I would likely never know it until they were working for me. Then I would put aside any differences, treat them fairly as I do all my employees and continue being the person I am. Perhaps we could talk about it (or not - government environment doesn't always allow for open discussions on hot topics). If the person had a major problem working for a gay supervisor, they would probably look for another job.

The main point I got from Rick is, if we want to be treated fairly and equally, then we must also treat others the same. It's the Golden Rule principle - that so many have forgotten - and it applies to both sides of the equality struggle. However, in my personal experiences I see it mainly applied by GLBT and allies. It's been that way throughout the entire "Prop 8 era".

Like I said, "I get the principle and goal,..." but there are some types I simply won't support nor act to further their misguided influence on the world. It would be morally disingenuous of me and intellectually deceptive to "fake it"... I will love them. I will pray for them. I will give them a practical chance, but I will oppose them at every relevant turn... I expect the same of others... The Golden Rule isn't a pass...