Susan's Place Logo

News:

Please be sure to review The Site terms of service, and rules to live by

Main Menu

Opponents of anti-discrimination laws

Started by JadeRose, May 15, 2012, 04:01:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JadeRose

Hi,

I couldn't find anything like this in the past few pages of threads here, so I figured I would post.

Being an American, the whole idea of equal rights for everyone has been ingrained into me since childhood.  I know that there are a number of states that are without, or have pending, laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals in the workplace, etc. (thx alaina for the link in another thread)

My question is, how and why would some individual or group want to fight a law like this? 

I guess I look at certain things pretty basically...to me it seems like if you're an opponent of this, you're advocating hate in an environment where it has no purpose.

Freedom of speech is one thing.  It's your right.  You can choose to hate if you want.  Whatever.  I'm not against that or taking rights away from people.  If you want to burn our flag in your front yard, I believe that's your right.  Anyways, In the workplace,  I don't see why these aren't well, understood, like a default law, a human rights kind of thing.  Pretty simple ish.  We already have protections on race, color, creed, etc.  Why would one want to fight to be able to discriminate against anyone?  I don't understand.  Why do we have to list these line items out and then fight to get another added?  Why not just a "discrimination is illegal" clause or something?
  •  

ToriJo

I don't understand either.

Things do have to be enumerated because there are legitimate reasons to discriminate - an employee that is lazy or steals for instance.  That's discrimination, albeit not in the way we'd typically think about it, and most people would think it's fine to fire people for those reasons.

As for getting them added, I'm not sure sexual orientation or gender identity need to be added - I think both are essentially variants of sex discrimination.  If the discrimination wouldn't happen if everything else was the same but the person's sex, I'd call it sex discrimination.  For a gay guy, for instance, the problem is that he's attracted to guys.  If he was female, being attracted to guys would be less of an issue with the bigots.  The same for trans people although typically it's the bigot's conception of what someone's sex and/or gender is.  But getting them added will save a lot of work in the courts trying to convince a judge of this.

As to why people do it, I don't know.  I think there are lots of things - everything from people who feel superior by fighting society (a lot of fundamentalists are in this category - they are waging a "culture war", and I think they would have to find a different enemy if it wasn't LGBT folk).  Others do it because they were taught to - they were taught LGBT people are disgusting and repulsive and committing crimes against nature.  Others do it because they think they are doing God a favor.  Others do it because they think it will get them their own acceptance.  Others do it because they are deeply in the closet and trying to deny who they are (what better way than fighting against people like yourself).  And I'm sure there are 100 other reasons.

For me, I was definitely a bigot - I'd tell someone to their face that their lifestyle was wrong but that they had the right to live it - so I'd probably still support a non-discrimination law, but I thought that the nation was all going to hell because of the gays and Hollywood.  I thought I was speaking the truth under a calling of God doing that garbage.  Fortunately God didn't strike me with a lightning bolt to explain things to me, but rather found a different way of getting through to me.  I am grateful for my second chance.
  •  

JadeRose

Thanks for clarifying some, with respect to what you said about getting them added.

I guess I just noticed the differences on the ACLU map of the US states, how some had a "sex" protection clause while others had a specific "gender identity" clause, and it just seemed that since identity wasn't explicitly stated, it would at least be a little more difficult to fight if things came to that.

I think I'm just worried since one of my bosses and his colleague voiced his hatred towards "gays" while at a business dinner, presumably without knowing my status.  I kept quiet, but it's obviously got me worried.
  •