Ban discrimination based on sexuality/gender id, nationwide?

The Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in housing, education and employment, based on race, gender, nationality, age.

But it does not protect people based on their sexuality or gender identity.

Many think its time to add these protections to the Civil Rights Act.

Right now, in many states, its legal for a Gay employer or landlord to reject someone SIMPLY because they are straight.

Its 2019. I say its time to end all discrimination in the USA based on sexuality/gender identity.

 

I am in favor of freedom.
An employer or landlord should be able to hire, fire, rent or not rent to anyone they choose.

Same goes for people boycotting / protesting.

If a company doesn't want to hire a gay person they shouldn't have to but they should have to be honest about that being the reason then that person should feel free to make it publicly known why they weren't hired.

There are two genders male and female. There is no science to the contrary, also there is no gay gene . These are lufestyle choices and not legitimate minorities.

Public jobs, hr departments for government agencies should be forced to higher the most qualified candidate without respect to who they are.

 

There are multiple genders, mutations of XX and XY but they do exist. As for homosexuality, even if it is not genetic it is not necessarily chosen. Theories range from hormonal imbalances during fertilization to environmental factors. Almost no one outside far right groups believe people choose to be gay, they are absolutely a minority just as Muslims are considered a minority in the US.

While I personally believe an inclusive society is better for its citizens it is unjust to target specific groups for discrimination while making it illegal against others. Either protect everyone or protect no one.

 

Yes. But on the condition that the law also explicitly bans affirmative action based on sexuality.

Also "discrimination based on gender idenitity" is not clearly defined. The law should also clearly state that "misgendering" (eg a sports event that requires a transgender woman to compete with men) is not discrimination and should be legal. Discrimination is only denying them access, not putting them with their biological sex.

 

Affirmative action in general needs to end.
No preferential treatment for anyone

 

Exactly. And there's a huge hypocrisy here since civil rights laws explicitly forbid affirmative action, yet courts rule in favor of it.

This double standard needs to be addressed before asking for more civil rights laws.

 

I definitely agree that aa needs to be removed but I disagree we need to wait to treat everyone equally in the meantime.

 

That's why I'm advocating for anti-discrimination laws to explicitly name and outlaw affirmative action in the meantime. So that there's no room for interpretation.

 

Theory! Can't base public policy on shakey theories.
Yes there are chromosome mix ups and they lead to debilitating diseases and are exceptionally rare.

It is also unjust to tell an employee who he or she must hire and its unjust to tell a property owner who he is mandated to rent to.
And my money had better go for getting the best people for public service jobs.

Minority rights are special rights not equal rights.
Artificially leveling the playing field doesn't level the playing field at all.

You are right, protect no one.

 

No we should discriminate based on sexuality and gender identity. If your sexuality is pedophilia you should be discriminated against. If you mean orientation you should say orientation. And we should be able to discriminate on sexual identity. if you identify as a 6 year old girl but you're 45 year old man you shouldn't be able to go into the girls locker room that's discrimination based on gender identity.

 

What about the whole section of discrimination law based on religion?

 

Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion or the free practice thereof.
If a Muslim landowner doesn't want to rent out his property to an infidel knowing that his property will be used to worship whstvhe considers an idol , he shouldn't have to and forcing him to i think violates his right to practice his religion.

I'll take individual liberty over just about everything but other people's life liberty or property.

 

But isn't that law based on "shakey theories" of religion much like the laws based on the "shakey theories" of gender identity and sexual orientation you're objecting to? If personal practice of consensual religious activities should be protected, why not personal practice of consensual sexual activities?

But not the other way around; If a tenant has been renting land and practising their religion at a sacred spot for years (maybe generations), should a new land owner be free to kick them out just because they dislike the specific religion? If property rights are to trump everything, they need to trump everything, even religion.

I do find it interesting that whether things like this come up about discrimination against homosexuals or transgender people, there is lots of noise about liberty and personal freedom but that noise never seems to continue it's natural progress towards ripping up all the existing discrimination laws based on race, gender or religion.

 

One step at a time.

 

I for one would not be interested in living or working were I am not wanted. I do not think legislation like this is good for anyone. Let the racist business owner hire who they want and hopefully they go out of business.

 

Equality of Opportunity, all the way.

All citizens of this great country have a moral right to housing, employment and education without being discriminated against due to things they have no control over......or things they should not be forced to change just to get a ****ing job, home or go to school.

 

It's funny how when it comes to Affirmative Action, many Conservatives yell "equality of opportunity!!!! Not equality of results!!!!"

But then when it comes to laws banning discrimination based on sexuality or gender ID, many of then yell "screw equality of Opportunity!! I have the right to discriminate against anyone I want for any reason!!! Don't like it? Don't shop at my store or live in my building"

 

Their view point is consistent not a contradiction as you imply.

Equality of opportunity does not mean equal access to me, my life, or my property because I determine who has such access.

 

Everyone wants a simple solution here. We know how well that 'free enterprise' idea worked in the segregationist south and how well it worked to advance women above the status of secretary and teacher. Sometimes societal and cultural norms based on stereotypes and bigotry trump any notion of meritocracy in the marketplace for decades upon decades upon decades throughout huge swaths of geography. Nothing more stupid than being the first or second to get rid of segregated seating in your restaurant, or hiring that transgender for your CEO, if it means that nobody will play ball, as long as you insist on flouting cultural norms.

There are circumstances where the discrimination is so pervasive, so deeply ingrained, and so broad in scope, that only application of a civil rights law and affirmative action can make the needed 'dent' or crack through which a merit based economic system can blossom and grow. Under those narrow circumstances, I can support the use of these government tools to brake the back of these community wide and age old 'cultural 'rules'.

But we haven't figured out how to sunset the use of these last ditch government tools, when they are no longer necessary, and time and market pressures will finish the job civil rights laws started. As sure as I am, that we once needed aggressive enforcement of racial discrimination laws, I am equally sure that we no longer need to use them nearly as often now. Enough of those glass ceilings have been broken down, that businesses that refuse to hire and promote based on merit regardless of race, and serve all customers that come in the door, will often suffer competitively at the hands who could care less. Same is true for gender.

What is really ironic and twisted is that when we leave it to the states to figure out which classes need the extra support of statutory protected status in their civil rights laws, is that the political pressures tend to build for protection in the very states where it won't be needed long. Thus New York protects gays from discrimination, but Mississippi does not, when Mississippi has a more pervasive and deeper antipathy secondary to its more conservative, rural and evangelical demographic and their gay population will have a far tougher time breaking through barriers to employment, housing and public accommodation. Meanwhile, New York could probably afford to discontinue and sunset their protected status, knowing that gays can find enough sympathetic allies to fight or avoid discrimination, without that law.

All that said, I am not sure that gays can't conquer those pervasive barriers even in Mississippi on their own without inclusion in the law, given another generation. Polling data among the youth in even the most ardent of socially conservative communities, suggests that blatant discrimination based on orientation is becoming passe, dated and just withering away in the under 25 set. We may have already made enough cracks in that glass ceiling. Maybe we haven't.

Transgender is a whole different question. The cultural aversion to transgenderism as 'unnatural' is very deeply rooted in us regardless of religion. They may need civil rights inclusion.

 

so in your world, Equal Opportunity means a whole town or even whole city can come together and decide to ban all Jews or blacks or Catholics from stores, housing, schools, jobs, even water fountains.

nice, real nice.

George Wallace would be proud

 

The us no way to make equal results. All people are different and all people have different talents. Some make it some don't. Why shouldn't someone with a high intelligence and an extremely good work ethic not make more money than other people. The government should stay out of the way and just worry about equal opportunity.

 

so you support Federal laws banning workplace, housing, education discrimination?

 

No that does not follow from what I said. Individuals have rights groups do not

 

Those are immoral laws and need to be repealed

 

its immoral to prevent someone from banning me from their store, just cause I am white and a Jew?

its immoral to make it illegal for Walmart to refuse to hire black people?

I thought u guys supported Equal Opportunity?