2011: The Year for Gay Rights?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. The definition you provided, and all other definitions of discrimination, do not include a clause saying it's not discrimination if the exclusion is based on demonstrable fact. .

It says it must be based on individual MERIT. Facts showing harm is MERIT.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

So, according to your logic, if the denial of someone or some group to a good or service is based on true or legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination?

Close. The tricky part is that too often harm is insinuated when there is none really OR when other steps could readily be taken. (for example, seperate bunks for men and women, for example) The harm must be significant, so that eliminating the harm is a truly valid concern.

Harm has nothing to do with my question at hand, nor does it describe by what you mean when you type "Close," so that's irrelevant.


Your response to my question can only be "yes" or "no."

I'm restating the opposite of your position. You say: if NOT X, then it's discrimination. I ask: if X, then it is NOT discrimination...

Either you agree with your logic, or you don't.

[Symmetry]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

So, according to your logic, if the denial of someone or some group to a good or service is based on true or legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination?

Close. The tricky part is that too often harm is insinuated when there is none really OR when other steps could readily be taken. (for example, seperate bunks for men and women, for example) The harm must be significant, so that eliminating the harm is a truly valid concern.

Harm has nothing to do with my question at hand, nor does it describe by what you mean when you type "Close," so that's irrelevant.


Your response to my question can only be "yes" or "no."

I'm restating the opposite of your position. You say: if NOT X, then it's discrimination. I ask: if X, then it is NOT discrimination...

Either you agree with your logic, or you don't.

Kind of a dick move with that one BBS, you demanding that the answer come in a form you like. Plenty of grey areas on this issue, so demanding "yes" or "no" doesn't really work, right?

[BigBallinStalin]

The gray area lies in the metaphysical issues of her statement.

Aside from that, she either agrees with what her logic entails, or she doesn't. That's the only two possible choices because if a gray area was a problem, then all she has to say is, "No, let me rearrange that for you."


This is player we're dealing with. I want some clarity because I'm tired of having her flip-flop later in the discussion. But, yes, Sym, I'm such a dick for asking PLAYER to be coherent for a change.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm tired of repeating myself. It's become clear that you somehow separate sex and sexuality, l.

No, its clear that I stick to dictionary definitions, not some attempt at politically correct pablum.

That this impacts almost all homosexuals is unfortunate, but it would only be discrimination IF there were not a true and legitimate reason for the denial. Everything else is irrelevant.

So, according to your logic, if the denial of someone or some group to a good or service is based on true or legitimate reasons, then it is not discrimination?

Close. The tricky part is that too often harm is insinuated when there is none really OR when other steps could readily be taken. (for example, seperate bunks for men and women, for example) The harm must be significant, so that eliminating the harm is a truly valid concern.

Harm has nothing to do with my question at hand, nor does it describe by what you mean when you type "Close," so that's irrelevant.


Your response to my question can only be "yes" or "no."

I'm restating the opposite of your position. You say: if NOT X, then it's discrimination. I ask: if X, then it is NOT discrimination...

Either you agree with your logic, or you don't.

sorry, as much as making everything simple might feed into your belief system, thats just not how most things in this world work, including this one. The above IS the simple answer. Its not a direct and simple question. If it were, there would not be thousands of attorneys getting pretty nice paychecks from such issues.

[PLAYER57832]

This is player we're dealing with. I want some clarity because I'm tired of having her flip-flop later in the discussion. But, yes, Sym, I'm such a dick for asking PLAYER to be coherent for a change.

No, you're a dick for insisting that this is an issue that HAS a simple answer and that I am just being stupid for not giving it.

But go ahead.. its classic BBS.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not assuming you're stupid. If you disagree with me, then disagree and state why. You just said, "Close," but the reason you gave wasn't coherent.

But I'm very patient, so let's try a new angle:


How is a rule not discriminatory if it denies a certain group from access to some good (regardless of the arbitrariness or good reasons for the discrimination)?

If you dislike the part in parentheses, then please state how arbitrary discrimination is discrimination, and how discrimination based on good reasons can't be discrimination.

[thegreekdog]

Let me give an unrelated example: Fire departments require that persons wear headgear (for safety purposes) and to wear such headgear the male individuals must shave. African Americans are more susceptible to a disease that affects their skin on their faces when they shave (I also have this dease for some reason) and it makes shaving uncomfortable. Does the fire department have the right to require that people wear this helmet? How about the shaving part?

[PLAYER57832]

Let me give an unrelated example: Fire departments require that persons wear headgear (for safety purposes) and to wear such headgear the male individuals must shave. African Americans are more susceptible to a disease that affects their skin on their faces when they shave (I also have this dease for some reason) and it makes shaving uncomfortable. Does the fire department have the right to require that people wear this helmet? How about the shaving part?

Exactly. Thank you.

WITH the caveat that IF there were a design of helmets that worked with facial hair or some other modification, then a strict prohibition would not be warranted. OR, say, maybe such a helmet is available (its not, as far as I know), but so prohibitively expensive that a volunteer company cannot afford it. (literally, they truly would close if they had to buy these). Then, the alternative would be to require the person to pay at least partially for that helmet.. or to perhaps seek out a specific grant for that purpose, etc. However, until any such accomodation is possible/practical a prohibition against beards is warranted. (and most companies absolutely have such a requirement.. its why my husband is currently clean-shaven).
To be extremely technical, its not the helmet, its the face mask that cannot form a clean seal if there is facial hair

Another possibility is for the individual above to sign a waiver. However, because the air masks are life-saving and the risk without one is extraordinary (not to mention the fact that no human could really stay in a fire and effectively fight if they are not breathing well), it is unlikely that would be allowed. They MIGHT allow the person to help in outside only areas, but that would depend on the operation. Might be allowed in a volunteer organization, but not in a paid organization, for example.


SO, see, even such a very "simple" question really is not at all simple. Again, that is why a lot of attorneys are making money (though to clarify what I said above, those in this field often don't make huge amounts.. some do, but not all by any means).

[thegreekdog]

There is a court case on this exact issue.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not assuming you're stupid. If you disagree with me, then disagree and state why. You just said, "Close," but the reason you gave wasn't coherent.

But I'm very patient, so let's try a new angle:


How is a rule not discriminatory if it denies a certain group from access to some good (regardless of the arbitrariness or good reasons for the discrimination)?

If you dislike the part in parentheses, then please state how arbitrary discrimination is discrimination, and how discrimination based on good reasons can't be discrimination.

Your new angle is to change the definition. Sorry, not playing that game.

Its discrimination if its NOT based on merit. The definition of merit includes harm to others, not just classification of the group.

BUT, it gets complicated because how various parties view that merit varies. That is why a lot of attorneys have jobs.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not assuming you're stupid. If you disagree with me, then disagree and state why. You just said, "Close," but the reason you gave wasn't coherent.

But I'm very patient, so let's try a new angle:


How is a rule not discriminatory if it denies a certain group from access to some good (regardless of the arbitrariness or good reasons for the discrimination)?

If you dislike the part in parentheses, then please state how arbitrary discrimination is discrimination, and how discrimination based on good reasons can't be discrimination.

Your new angle is to change the definition. Sorry, not playing that game.

Its discrimination if its NOT based on merit. The definition of merit includes harm to others, not just classification of the group.

BUT, it gets complicated because how various parties view that merit varies. That is why a lot of attorneys have jobs.

Haha, you think I'm out to get you or something. With all these crazy games! WHOA!

But thanks for "playing the game" by answering my questions.

[Neoteny]

Far as I can tell, BBS is using PLAYER's words against her, and I don't think it's dickish to call her out on her waffling. Yes it's discriminatory in the firefighters' case too, though you are free to argue it's necessary.

It says it must be based on individual MERIT. Facts showing harm is MERIT.

We've been over this. The restriction isn't based on individual merit. It's based on an observation of the results from a population engaging in an activity inherent to them. They aren't asking if you have a blood disease. They are asking if you are a homosexual. They do this to drug users too. Most of us feel that is justified. Some of us feel like it isn't for homosexuals. It is a high-risk activity, sure, but it is also one inherent to the population. I know your next response will be that it's justified by public health concerns, then I'll say that's not in the definition, then you'll say etc.

I'm going to give this one last go, so please bear with my "idiocy" and "blambast" (the escalations in this thread have all been brought on by you) for this last attempt. I sincerely want to hear your response. If it goes the way I expect, I'll probably wash my hands of this. If not, there's nothing else to talk about. If you go off the deep end, I might be amused enough to continue, but I don't expect that to happen. However, I'm curious if you actually think like this.

Let's suppose that simultaneous to the emergence of AIDS, there was another illness that struck Catholics all over the country. Good Catholics were doing their thing and were unexpectedly coming down with aggressive forms of usually mild diseases and dying left and right. And they all struck like hemorrhaggic fevers. Bleeding from every oriface. Blood everywhere. WBC thought it was wonderful. Some Protestants got it too, but Catholics were the hardest hit. It turns out to be an immune system suppressor caused by a mutated, weakend form of ebola (lolbiology I know) that was being passed via communion wafer due to whatever they do to the crackers. Anyway, the FDA decides that we should probably do something about that. Communion is now a high-risk behavior.

So:

A) since 1979, have you taken, or had sex with someone that has taken communion? Is this discriminatory toward Catholics?, since it doesn't explicitly rule them out? After all, they could just not take communion if they want to donate blod.

B) is it not discriminatory since it is a public health concern?

C) would the Catholics just be bullying the ARC just because they aren't getting their way?

D) would people who are against this policy be so just because they are too PC?

PS. I know you have nothing against homosexuals. Your separation of sex and sexuality is just bizzare. Do you separate religions and required religious practices the same way?

[thegreekdog]

In the context of discrimination based on protected class, at least for purposes of government employees, there needs to be an analysis as to whether the government has a compelling state interest in requiring whatever it is that they are requiring that has a disparate impact on certain protected classes. In the firefighter instance, African Americans are a protected class, the government has the requirement, so the issue was whether shaving was a compelling government interest.

In the case of the Red Cross, well, the government is not the actor and I don't know if sexuality is a protected class.

[Neoteny]

In the context of discrimination based on protected class, at least for purposes of government employees, there needs to be an analysis as to whether the government has a compelling state interest in requiring whatever it is that they are requiring that has a disparate impact on certain protected classes. In the firefighter instance, African Americans are a protected class, the government has the requirement, so the issue was whether shaving was a compelling government interest.

In the case of the Red Cross, well, the government is not the actor and I don't know if sexuality is a protected class.

This is, of course, the correct answer at a practical level. I'm surprised nobody brought it up sooner. I think sexuality is protected at the state level in some cases, but not federally. I've been told that it's still legal to be fired for being gay (is there a gay test, or do we just fire people who "talk like a fag") in Georgia and 30 someodd other states, but that was from random equality person on the corner. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, though.

[thegreekdog]

In the context of discrimination based on protected class, at least for purposes of government employees, there needs to be an analysis as to whether the government has a compelling state interest in requiring whatever it is that they are requiring that has a disparate impact on certain protected classes. In the firefighter instance, African Americans are a protected class, the government has the requirement, so the issue was whether shaving was a compelling government interest.

In the case of the Red Cross, well, the government is not the actor and I don't know if sexuality is a protected class.

This is, of course, the correct answer at a practical level. I'm surprised nobody brought it up sooner. I think sexuality is protected at the state level in some cases, but not federally. I've been told that it's still legal to be fired for being gay (is there a gay test, or do we just fire people who "talk like a fag") in Georgia and 30 someodd other states, but that was from random equality person on the corner. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, though.

It is a protected class in New Jersey, I believe. Not sure about any other states (I suspect not in Pennsylvania, for example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... nation_Act

[Woodruff]

Let me give an unrelated example: Fire departments require that persons wear headgear (for safety purposes) and to wear such headgear the male individuals must shave. African Americans are more susceptible to a disease that affects their skin on their faces when they shave (I also have this dease for some reason) and it makes shaving uncomfortable. Does the fire department have the right to require that people wear this helmet? How about the shaving part?

Good question! In the military, there is actually a waiver for this shaving requirement for that exact skin condition (it's not a disease so much as the way the hair grows, by the way). Now, I'm quite certain that shaving requirement still holds without a waiver where there is a safety issue (such as with firefighters), but I just thought I'd throw in that interesting tidbit with it.

[Woodruff]

Far as I can tell, BBS is using PLAYER's words against her, and I don't think it's dickish to call her out on her waffling. Yes it's discriminatory in the firefighters' case too, though you are free to argue it's necessary.

Correct. Being discriminatory simply means "to discriminate". Sometimes, discrimination is not illegal and sometimes it is necessary.

This situation is discriminatory, but it is not illegal discrimination.

[Woodruff]

In the context of discrimination based on protected class, at least for purposes of government employees, there needs to be an analysis as to whether the government has a compelling state interest in requiring whatever it is that they are requiring that has a disparate impact on certain protected classes. In the firefighter instance, African Americans are a protected class, the government has the requirement, so the issue was whether shaving was a compelling government interest.

In the case of the Red Cross, well, the government is not the actor and I don't know if sexuality is a protected class.

This is, of course, the correct answer at a practical level. I'm surprised nobody brought it up sooner. I think sexuality is protected at the state level in some cases, but not federally. I've been told that it's still legal to be fired for being gay (is there a gay test, or do we just fire people who "talk like a fag") in Georgia and 30 someodd other states, but that was from random equality person on the corner. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, though.

It could be similar to how it was presented in the military, requiring either admission or proven homosexual acts (sodomy, etc...).

[BigBallinStalin]

Far as I can tell, BBS is using PLAYER's words against her, and I don't think it's dickish to call her out on her waffling. Yes it's discriminatory in the firefighters' case too, though you are free to argue it's necessary.

Correct. Being discriminatory simply means "to discriminate". Sometimes, discrimination is not illegal and sometimes it is necessary.

This situation is discriminatory, but it is not illegal discrimination.

The Woodruff-Neotony-BBS consensus has been achieved. I can now sleep soundly ITT and be a dick elsewhere by calling people out on their waffling.

"Waffling," I like it. Is that a scientific term, Neotony?

[Neoteny]

I believe it is a legal term, actually. Any person whose argument may be boiled down to a delicious, maple syrup-covered breakfast treat must be subjected to dickery of the highest degree. The triumvirate has spoken: this issue has been solved for humanity.

You're welcome.

[BigBallinStalin]

When did you change from your name from "Neotony" to "Neoteny"?

[Neoteny]

Well... one of those is actually a word, and my irl name isn't Tony. It's such a common mistake, though, that I don't generally even notice it. Plus I always feel like a dick for correcting someone about my smartass screenname.

[thegreekdog]

I believe it is a legal term, actually. Any person whose argument may be boiled down to a delicious, maple syrup-covered breakfast treat must be subjected to dickery of the highest degree. The triumvirate has spoken: this issue has been solved for humanity.

You're welcome.

Wait... I thought only Woodruff was part of Saxitoxin's Gang of Five?

[pimpdave]