Neoteny wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
Except, you are wrong. They do NOT ask if the person was homosexual. They ask if you have had sex with a male, if you have used drugs, etc. They are
behaviors that
individuals engage in that specifically place that person at more risk for sexually transmitted diseases. That the one behavior also cooincides with a group labeled "homosexuals" is irrelevant. Truth is, you can pick any set of attributes and label the participants a group. BUT, to decide whether that group is being discriminated against means that the exclusion is based on their membership in that group.
That the group above involves sexuality and that sexuality is part of normal human activity is irrelevant. The action was not taken because that group exists, it was taken becuase the activity involved places these people at risk. That this means an entire group is excluded (or 99% of it anyway) is unfortunate, but that, alone does not make it discrimination.
Neoteny wrote: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.
Now you are getting into the moral/legal question. This is partially involved in that determining if an action is taken in response to a specific threat/cause or if it is based on group membership. It provides the evidence for whether the action was legitimate -- based on, in this case, the specific behavior, but in other cases maybe specific physical attributes. The potential harm, the reason for the exclusion is judged reasonable if there really is evidence of the particular factor causing real harm and there is not an easy/practical or even possible way to avoid the harm other than exclusion of the people who happen to be in that group. Because it is based on the evidence of harm, the action or specific attribute, it IS based on the individual merit. It just so happens that there is a group of people who are all judged on individual merit.
Put it another way. Is it discriminatory to exclude people without legs or in wheelchairs from competing against the "able bodied" in races? The short answer is that it may be OK for them to run, but not to get the same awards on a par with those who have legs, because they are not running with legs.
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. ?
Justified or not is another question, a legal/moral one. Nothing at all to do with whether it is discrimination or not.
And greekdog addressed part of it, with the beards and the fire fighting. In fact, this has come to court in other cases, particularly with certain Orthodox Jews, for example. Universally, it is judged that being clean shaven is a requirement of the equipment, that not being clean-shaven is a safety risk, not just for that person, but for others in the company and therefore this exclusion is not discrimination. As a result, I believe some Jewish firemen have been given specific religious dispensations. However, I also think I read that there is now, more recently, mask that covers more of the face and does not require a person to be beardless, but I am not at all sure about that. If so, that would change the rule.
At any rate, nice try at combining 3 issues. I have ONLY debated the "is it discrimination". I did address the "is this appropriate" and "is this legal" earlier. (I said earlier about what greekdog said, specifically that this is a private organization and therefore not subject to the rules of a government entity).
