-
Website
http://randythomas.org/ -
Original page
http://randythomas.org/2007/10/25/video-of-the-enda-press-conference-last-week/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
As for your presentation, I think I mentioned somewhere else that I thought your argument was much weaker than the arguments I've seen you give regarding Hate Crimes Laws. Not that I think you believe it any less, just the argument isn't as strong. I don't think though that I was particularly left confused.
j.
Susan and Jeremiah - Thank you very much for that. I didn't think it was too unclear. I have gotten great feedback on the whole thing.
Well, except for some who are only focussed on my having gained some weight. I think the adjective was "fat." Other than that it has all been positive.
If a label becomes necessary, I usually pick "center-right."
As for your presentation, I think I mentioned somewhere else that I thought your argument was much weaker than the arguments I've seen you give regarding Hate Crimes Laws. Not that I think you believe it any less, just the argument isn't as strong. I don't think though that I was particularly left confused.
j.
Susan and Jeremiah - Thank you very much for that. I didn't think it was too unclear. I have gotten great feedback on the whole thing.
Well, except for some who are only focussed on my having gained some weight. I think the adjective was "fat." Other than that it has all been positive.
If a label becomes necessary, I usually pick "center-right."
I don't think your message itself was confusing. I guess my question for your story is, what if this upper supervisor hadn't been so understanding? What if instead of telling your boss to stop she allowed it to continue or even fired you? I think your story is exactly how things should work and how they usually do work (thankfully). But, what if they don't work that way? What's the recourse then?
Quite a number of possibilities exist depending on the circumstance. You could sue, find another job, organize protests, rally the gay activist community, call the local news, write a letter to the editor, get HRC to write a mean press release, live with it (I couldn't do that but some people do and don't care.)
I am not saying any one of the above is preferable but that list and more is what people are already doing. We don't need the Federal government imposing bad legislation upon private corporations. The corporate world has changed. ENDA is bad and unnecessary.
I guess then comes the question as to whether the government should be in the business of providing protective legilsation of this sort at all. All other currently protected classes have those same recourses they could use instead of asking the government to get involved. I know you've already said your side on that, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
The key words of your comment are "protected classes." To date the gay identified community has not proven themselves to be a "protected class" according to the standards set forth in the Civil Rights act of 1964; Immutability, Documented widespread pattern of discrimination and economic disenfranchisement.
ENDA would usurp the Civil Rights Act by creating a protected class out of real or perceived sexual/gender identity/orientation that cannot fit any of the criteria already used by law to determine a protected class.
According to the definition you give set by the CRA of 1964, religion should not count because it is not immutable, nor can most religions show a widespread pattern of economic disenfranchisement. For that matter, a whole lot of protected classes can't fulfill those obligations, but they still get Federal protection.
This "definition" has a whole lot of ambiguity, and a lot is open to interpretation. That's why many in the gay community are arguing for protections. If white male Christians can get protections Federally (which they can--the updated CRA does not speficy which races or religions are protected--all are), why can't gays?
I think a LOT of lawyers would disagree that the freedom of religion and CRA of 1964 are ambiguous. Plus, religion doesn't just cover white males. Your polarizing an argument instead of seeing the obvious.
I don't think your message itself was confusing. I guess my question for your story is, what if this upper supervisor hadn't been so understanding? What if instead of telling your boss to stop she allowed it to continue or even fired you? I think your story is exactly how things should work and how they usually do work (thankfully). But, what if they don't work that way? What's the recourse then?
Quite a number of possibilities exist depending on the circumstance. You could sue, find another job, organize protests, rally the gay activist community, call the local news, write a letter to the editor, get HRC to write a mean press release, live with it (I couldn't do that but some people do and don't care.)
I am not saying any one of the above is preferable but that list and more is what people are already doing. We don't need the Federal government imposing bad legislation upon private corporations. The corporate world has changed. ENDA is bad and unnecessary.
I guess then comes the question as to whether the government should be in the business of providing protective legilsation of this sort at all. All other currently protected classes have those same recourses they could use instead of asking the government to get involved. I know you've already said your side on that, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
The key words of your comment are "protected classes." To date the gay identified community has not proven themselves to be a "protected class" according to the standards set forth in the Civil Rights act of 1964; Immutability, Documented widespread pattern of discrimination and economic disenfranchisement.
ENDA would usurp the Civil Rights Act by creating a protected class out of real or perceived sexual/gender identity/orientation that cannot fit any of the criteria already used by law to determine a protected class.
According to the definition you give set by the CRA of 1964, religion should not count because it is not immutable, nor can most religions show a widespread pattern of economic disenfranchisement. For that matter, a whole lot of protected classes can't fulfill those obligations, but they still get Federal protection.
This "definition" has a whole lot of ambiguity, and a lot is open to interpretation. That's why many in the gay community are arguing for protections. If white male Christians can get protections Federally (which they can--the updated CRA does not speficy which races or religions are protected--all are), why can't gays?
I think a LOT of lawyers would disagree that the freedom of religion and CRA of 1964 are ambiguous. Plus, religion doesn't just cover white males. Your polarizing an argument instead of seeing the obvious.
that's polarizing? I don't think so. Making this a matter of white religious males versus gay identified people... that would be polarizing.
It's obvious that the gay identified community do not warrant protected class status conferred through shoddy legislation that not even the GLB and T communities can agree on.
But, if you want to let this go ... that's cool with me.
I think I might not have been clear. Either that, or I've been taken out of context.
My point about white Christian males (which I am) was that they enjoy full Federal protection from discrimination in the workplace because of their race, sex, and religion. You said earlier that only groups that can show immutability, a history of discrimination, and economic disenfranchisement can become a "protected class."
I used white Christian males not to try to polarize (it wouldn't make sense since I identify as all of those) but to show that protected class distinctions aren't so narrowly definted and that they should cover all groups that show the possibility of discrimination.
Also, Randy, I agree that these issues should be handled in the workplace and in a capitalistic society as a whole. However, my initial point was that sometimes that doesn't work, which is why the government gives protections out. I'm just saying that we've admitted that some groups need protections, and I think to deny protections from gays, a group that has shown that it is discriminated against at a fairly regular rate per capita, (compared to other groups) seems unequal.
This isn't an us versus them it's a comparison of two groups two show that both are deserving of the same. I don't see how that's polarizing.
Protected classes aren't just one group as opposed to another. If that were the case I would need to be in a protected class from all the abuse and threats I get from gay activists.
... but existing law already protects me. I don't need protected class status and neither does the gay identified community.
The Beatitudes came to mind. 'Blessed are the persecuted... Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you...' My prayer is that you will have joy in it; gladness and rejoicing; that the strength of the Lord will be visible in your weariness; that you will soar with wings as an ealge and, like Jeremiah, that you will gain deeper experience of His new mercies everyday, great is His faithfulness. You are a lifegiver. May you be full of the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, Counsel and Power, Knowledge and Fear of the Lord and may you find your singing voice as did Paul and Silas in prison...and Brother Yun. May you sing Psalm 18. Be blessed and encouraged.
that's polarizing? I don't think so. Making this a matter of white religious males versus gay identified people... that would be polarizing.
It's obvious that the gay identified community do not warrant protected class status conferred through shoddy legislation that not even the GLB and T communities can agree on.
But, if you want to let this go ... that's cool with me.
I think I might not have been clear. Either that, or I've been taken out of context.
My point about white Christian males (which I am) was that they enjoy full Federal protection from discrimination in the workplace because of their race, sex, and religion. You said earlier that only groups that can show immutability, a history of discrimination, and economic disenfranchisement can become a "protected class."
I used white Christian males not to try to polarize (it wouldn't make sense since I identify as all of those) but to show that protected class distinctions aren't so narrowly definted and that they should cover all groups that show the possibility of discrimination.
Also, Randy, I agree that these issues should be handled in the workplace and in a capitalistic society as a whole. However, my initial point was that sometimes that doesn't work, which is why the government gives protections out. I'm just saying that we've admitted that some groups need protections, and I think to deny protections from gays, a group that has shown that it is discriminated against at a fairly regular rate per capita, (compared to other groups) seems unequal.
This isn't an us versus them it's a comparison of two groups two show that both are deserving of the same. I don't see how that's polarizing.
Protected classes aren't just one group as opposed to another. If that were the case I would need to be in a protected class from all the abuse and threats I get from gay activists.
... but existing law already protects me. I don't need protected class status and neither does the gay identified community.