POD 1/16/2006: Should Gays be protected from discrimination in housing/jobs, etc?

Dback Jon · January 17th, 2006, 07:13 AM

Indianapolis just passed a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the areas of employment, education, public accommodations, and housing. Do you support laws like this, or do you feel an employer/landlord should have the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians?

Chris_Sanders · January 17th, 2006, 07:16 AM

Discrimination of any kind is stupid and outdated.

CaptTurbo · January 17th, 2006, 07:18 AM

Jon what a softball poll. Of course yes.

Dback Jon · January 17th, 2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swd1974

Jon what a softball poll. Of course yes.

you would think so, but the Indy vote passed by only a single vote, with many evangelical churches actively campaigning against it. A similar vote in Nashville was defeated last year. This type of measure has only been passed in about 18 states, and 100 cities across the country. Every time a similar measure is introduced in the US Congress, Republicans defeat it.

So, as a result, I have to keep my relationship with Rob revealed to only a select few at work, otherwise, my company could legally fire me at anytime.

Linderbee · January 17th, 2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

So, as a result, I have to keep my relationship with Rob revealed to only a select few at work, otherwise, my company could legally fire me at anytime.

Well, yeah, they could fire you. I mean, like, they could "catch" it (being gay) or something...I've heard that being gay is contagious...

Divide Et Impera · January 17th, 2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

So, as a result, I have to keep my relationship with Rob revealed to only a select few at work, otherwise, my company could legally fire me at anytime.

I voted "yes" because discrimination is wrong even if I personally don't like a particular lifestyle. However, it is not for me, or anyone, to say or judge another's natural orientation/lifestyle choice (whichever side you believe is the cause).

Employment - We are not responsible for plugging people into a "social network". We are only responsible for competent people who can be efficient in jobs. Sexual orientation has no bearing on those qualities.

Education - Don't really know what this is regarding, but if it is with regards to private schooling, discrimination should be allowed on the basis of sexual orientation. If it is in regards to public education, the acquiring of loans and access to higher education, then sexual orientation is no cause for discrimination.

Public Accomodations - PUBLIC accomodations. Enough said. To discriminate on sexual orientation in PUBLIC places, we'd have to have screening checkpoints throughout those places to monitor behaviors and make judgements based on behavior for ejecting people who violate the rules of the powers that be. Ugh.

Housing - Isn't sexual orientation a protected class in FHA anyways? I could be wrong, but race, creed, color, nationality, handicap, familial status and sexual orientation are the 7 protected classes. If I am right about this, the inclusion of housing in this law seems redundant. If I am wrong, well, stranger things have happened.

PS - Dback, if any one person knows your sexual orientation, it is likely that EVERYONE knows your sexual orientation. It doesn't take too much time around teh water cooler before the rumors of "who the pillow-biter is"....

Dback Jon · January 17th, 2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeds Of Hate

I voted "yes" because discrimination is wrong even if I personally don't like a particular lifestyle. However, it is not for me, or anyone, to say or judge another's natural orientation/lifestyle choice (whichever side you believe is the cause).

Employment - We are not responsible for plugging people into a "social network". We are only responsible for competent people who can be efficient in jobs. Sexual orientation has no bearing on those qualities.

Education - Don't really know what this is regarding, but if it is with regards to private schooling, discrimination should be allowed on the basis of sexual orientation. If it is in regards to public education, the acquiring of loans and access to higher education, then sexual orientation is no cause for discrimination.

Public Accomodations - PUBLIC accomodations. Enough said. To discriminate on sexual orientation in PUBLIC places, we'd have to have screening checkpoints throughout those places to monitor behaviors and make judgements based on behavior for ejecting people who violate the rules of the powers that be. Ugh.

Housing - Isn't sexual orientation a protected class in FHA anyways? I could be wrong, but race, creed, color, nationality, handicap, familial status and sexual orientation are the 7 protected classes. If I am right about this, the inclusion of housing in this law seems redundant. If I am wrong, well, stranger things have happened.

PS - Dback, if any one person knows your sexual orientation, it is likely that EVERYONE knows your sexual orientation. It doesn't take too much time around teh water cooler before the rumors of "who the pillow-biter is"....

Sexual Orientation may be for FHA loans/funding, but that would only apply if FHA money is used.

And yes, many do know, but there are many (who work in a different building) do not - regardless, I should not have to worry about it.

Divide Et Impera · January 17th, 2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

Sexual Orientation may be for FHA loans/funding, but that would only apply if FHA money is used.

And yes, many do know, but there are many (who work in a different building) do not - regardless, I should not have to worry about it.

Discrimination against protected classes in FHA prevents discrimination in housing. There are some exceptions, such as owner-occupied home where owner is renting out a room. So, if the owner of the home is living in the place where the renting is going to occur, he CAN discriminate. However, if he is NOT going to be living there, he CANNOT discriminate. These have NOTHING to do with loans. FHA prevents discrimination in all facets of housing....

Linderbee · January 17th, 2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeds Of Hate

Housing - Isn't sexual orientation a protected class in FHA anyways? I could be wrong, but race, creed, color, nationality, handicap, familial status and sexual orientation are the 7 protected classes. If I am right about this, the inclusion of housing in this law seems redundant. If I am wrong, well, stranger things have happened.

These are the protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap

Divide Et Impera · January 17th, 2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linderbee

These are the protected classes: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap

I stand corrected. I had 6 out of 7 right, but I guess I was wrong on sexual orientation. See, I told you that stranger things have happened....

CardLogic · January 17th, 2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

So, as a result, I have to keep my relationship with Rob revealed to only a select few at work, otherwise, my company could legally fire me at anytime.

Chances are they can fire you at anytime anyways...

Regarding discrimination... it's wrong. There are however exceptions, such as Seeds mentioned regarding private educational institutions, etc.

Divide Et Impera · January 17th, 2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardLogic

Chances are they can fire you at anytime anyways...

Regarding discrimination... it's wrong. There are however exceptions, such as Seeds mentioned regarding private educational institutions, etc.

AZ is a "right to work" state, so you can be fired with no notice and no reason at any time. Likewise, you can quit without notice or reason at any time. "Right to work" laws favor the companies, but I digress. My point is that if you ever do get fired, even if you suspect that it was based on discrimination, you'd have a VERY difficult time proving it in a state such as this. Proof of discrimination, or even sexual harrassment, would require that you document incidents and have witnesses sign your documents. You have to prove a pattern of dicrimination/harrassment. It's a tough nut to crack in this state....

Linderbee · January 17th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeds Of Hate

AZ is a "right to work" state, so you can be fired with no notice and no reason at any time. Likewise, you can quit without notice or reason at any time. "Right to work" laws favor the companies, but I digress. My point is that if you ever do get fired, even if you suspect that it was based on discrimination, you'd have a VERY difficult time proving it in a state such as this. Proof of discrimination, or even sexual harrassment, would require that you document incidents and have witnesses sign your documents. You have to prove a pattern of dicrimination/harrassment. It's a tough nut to crack in this state....

Yeah, but Jon lives in Tennessee....

40yearfan · January 17th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeds Of Hate

AZ is a "right to work" state, so you can be fired with no notice and no reason at any time. Likewise, you can quit without notice or reason at any time. "Right to work" laws favor the companies, but I digress. My point is that if you ever do get fired, even if you suspect that it was based on discrimination, you'd have a VERY difficult time proving it in a state such as this. Proof of discrimination, or even sexual harrassment, would require that you document incidents and have witnesses sign your documents. You have to prove a pattern of dicrimination/harrassment. It's a tough nut to crack in this state....

Right you are SOH. Barry Goldwater helped to get this law passed. He was afraid of the unions, so he and the legislature followed some southern states lead and put this into effect. He might have hurt the unions (although they are still here), but he has also allowed almost any worker to not have protections in an instance of discrimination.

40yearfan · January 17th, 2006, 06:54 PM

Discrimination is wrong.