When I read that sexual orientation is a clausule of a discxrimination prohibition, I ask myself how such came to be? Who initiated such a protection? I asked myself thgis question because sexual orientation goes to any behavior of an individual with his sex preferences. So, we have a guy who suffers of zoophilia and cannot be discriminated when he applies for a job in an animal shelter. So, we have a pedophile who can't be discriminated when he applies to work in a childcare center. So, we have a captain whom while serving in the army practices polygamy and can't be expelled by the army, and if the army rejects him, such IS AGAINST THE LAW! And so forth. Sexual orientation goes farther than anything we can imagine and the law protects such sexual behaviors. The main question here is, who started with this clausule in the law? As far as it is known, BEFORE MAKING A LAW, IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS LAW WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY AND WILL PROTECT THE MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY AND THEIR PROPERTIES. So far, this clausule "sexual orientation" goes against ethics, it is practically against the integrity of our society. How in the world was inserted in the law prohibiting discrimination when someone applies for a job or is already working?
I feel I should point out that in my opinion, a lot of posts on this topic in this form are posted by trolls with no intention of any kind of serious discussion or debate. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about an apparently new poster but be aware that I am only interested in a serious discussion and am not going to play any silly games. Sexual orientation does not describe behaviour. Orientation is what you are, not what you do. This is the basis of all relevant legislation. No. It would obviously depend on the specifics but neither of those cases would necessarily be discrimination if there was a demonstrable risk from those specific individuals. It would be wrong to discriminate against someone apply for those jobs simply because they're homosexual for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate because they were Muslim or female. Polygamy is illegal. You can generally legally discriminate against someone who is actively breaking the law. I honestly don't know. I'm sure you could look it up if you're really interested to know. I guess it would be a development from homosexuality moving away from actually being considered criminal yet remaining socially condemned. As social acceptance of homosexuality increased, there was sufficient democratic support for including them in the scope of discrimination legislation. I think anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation in western countries started coming in in the 80s or 90s though I'm not convinced they've been strongly enforced until very recently. The benefit is the same as for all other discrimination legislation. Having groups of people treated as second class citizens is obviously not good for them and only serves to encourage division and conflict. It is also harmful to society since the best individuals for any given post or job may not receive it for totally irrelevant reasons.
I feel I should point out that in my opinion, a lot of posts on this topic in this form are posted by trolls with no intention of any kind of serious discussion or debate. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about an apparently new poster but be aware that I am only interested in a serious discussion and am not going to play any silly games. Quote Originally Posted by carloslebaron View Post I asked myself thgis question because sexual orientation goes to any behavior of an individual with his sex preferences. Sexual orientation does not describe behaviour. Orientation is what you are, not what you do. This is the basis of all relevant legislation. You are making a great point here if sexual orientation is not a behavior but "what you are". A person who loves having sex with dead people is "what he is", even when such act is against the law. We must modify such a law because having sex with dead people is "what he is" and no one can change that, unless you provide mental treatment or similar. Quote Originally Posted by carloslebaron View Post So, we have a guy who suffers of zoophilia and cannot be discriminated when he applies for a job in an animal shelter. So, we have a pedophile who can't be discriminated when he applies to work in a childcare center. No. It would obviously depend on the specifics but neither of those cases would necessarily be discrimination if there was a demonstrable risk from those specific individuals. It would be wrong to discriminate against someone apply for those jobs simply because they're homosexual for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate because they were Muslim or female. Very well. You require of a specific evidence that their "sexual orientation" will be a risk from those specific individuals. OK, lets play with that. Read the "personal ads" in Craigslist, Strickly Platonic, Women4Men, Women4Women, Men4Women, Men4Men, Casual Encounters, etc. etc. Notice that Men4Women and Women4Men are ads where 95% the people asks for a relantionship, something that last, and 5% look for sex, even drugs and sex (420). The pictures are also 95% for General view, and some pornography in 5% of them. When you read the ads in Women4Women, something similar is found, most of women look for a relationship, not much pornography, lots of pictures of flowers, and etc. When you read the ads from MEN4MEN, 95% is pure pornography, they go further than looking for another "gay partner", these people want to have sex with straight men, married men, etc. etc. The pictures are sao nasty that they show their anus in several of them. Do you get it? The pervertion in these ads mention sodomy acts like crazy, only 2% ask for relationship and 3% for friendship with possible relationship. By reading these ads in Craigslist from the 50 States, one can conclude that these homosexuals are a risk for the rest of men in our societies, because these homosexuals want to cross their community and invite to have sex with married men... such is inviting to cheat on wives... and worst, to acquire several sexual diseases because homosexuals love to lick the anus of other men... Such is a dangerous risk for straight men and their families, definitively homosexuality must be controlled if not erradicated from our societies. We can't expose to such open temptations which are not only found in Craigslist but anywhere in the city. Homosexuals want to "contagiate" straight men to become homosexuals, and that is a risk, the risk you are talking about. Quote Originally Posted by carloslebaron View Post So, we have a captain whom while serving in the army practices polygamy and can't be expelled by the army, and if the army rejects him, such IS AGAINST THE LAW! Polygamy is illegal. You can generally legally discriminate against someone who is actively breaking the law. Please apply to have your police records, you will be surprised that "sodomy" still appears as a "crime", this is to say, an act against the law. Quote Originally Posted by carloslebaron View Post The main question here is, who started with this clausule in the law? I honestly don't know. I'm sure you could look it up if you're really interested to know. Of course, please do so. This clausule of "sexual orientation" must have been reviewed for months before its inclusion. I want to know who started such an inititative. It can't be something included from night to morning because such is against the law, every inclusion in such law must have a solid foundation and study of its benefits before being included in a law. I guess it would be a development from homosexuality moving away from actually being considered criminal yet remaining socially condemned. As social acceptance of homosexuality increased, there was sufficient democratic support for including them in the scope of discrimination legislation. I think anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation in western countries started coming in in the 80s or 90s though I'm not convinced they've been strongly enforced until very recently. So you are telling me that if prostitution is more accepted, then won't be illegal anymore. So you are implying that if drinking and driving is more common or accepted, then the traffic laws must change to favor drinking alcohol and driving. Then, because shoplifting is very common today, we must support such an act, after all, stealing is their "personality orientation". No, my opinion is first to find out who included "sexual orientation" in the law about discrimination, because sexual orientation is very diverse, and going to specifics it can be a male being known as attracted to women, in specific married women... might he be a good candidate as marriage counselor? If he is discriminated for such a sexual attraction, come on, that is against the law. Definitively it is essential to find out who started it? how was approved? who voted for this approval? What were the specifics presented to be under discussion? The benefit is the same as for all other discrimination legislation. Having groups of people treated as second class citizens is obviously not good for them and only serves to encourage division and conflict. It is also harmful to society since the best individuals for any given post or job may not receive it for totally irrelevant reasons.
When did Craigslist become the definitive source on human behavior? How does this correlate to sexual orientation being a risk to specific individuals? So they show anuses, so does straight porn. How in the world can one reading ads from Craigslist conclude that homosexuals put the rest of men at risk because they want to "cross their community and invite to have sex with married men"? Seriously? Oh, and hetrosexuals lick anuses too. Is this your entire argument, gay sex is icky? Do you have ANY proof that homosexuals are trying to tempt straight men to become homesexuals? It sounds more like you are afraid that YOU are being tempted. Actually,sodomy is not a crime, not since 2003 when the SCOTUS ruled on the Lawrence v. Texas case that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. That is actually how laws work, at least in a democracy. Interracial marriage was once illegal. It became accepted and the law was changed. Our laws change all the time. Shoplifting is illegal, homosexuality is not. Please show me one job that cannot be done by a gay man. Google is your friend. I totally agree which is why I support gay rights.
Necrophillia isn't a considered sexual orientation. There is also not the long history of discrimination (up to and including murder) against necrophiliacs. I don't require anything. My point is that only factors relating to the specific individual are relevant. What some other homosexuals do shouldn't reflect on an application who happens to be homosexual any more than what some other Christians do shouldn't reflect on an applicant who happens to be Christian. Anyway, your example only goes to show that lots of people posting on the internet are perverts. Does that mean I should assume you're a pervert too? That is compete and utter trash! Could you back that up in any significant way what so ever? Apparently not. Anyway, not all homosexuals have anal sex (including most the female ones of course) and lots of heterosexuals do. This is a classic example of treating orientation as (perceived) behaviour. Prostitution is legal in many places, generally because a democratic majority accept it as such (not necessarily because they like it but because legalised it will be less harmful). Obviously drink driving is unlikely to receive anything close to sufficient acceptance but in theory it could be legalised on that basis. Shoplifting might be common but it isn't popular (even among some of the people who do I told you, I don't know. If you really care that much, go and find out. Nobody is going to do the work for you.
To search around to find sources to make a point does not make you a pervert. And about searching how sexual orientation appeared in a law, that is the point, why to obey a law that appeared from nothing? If there isn't a solid background to justify such a inclusion -background study before including "sexual orientation" in the law against discrimination- then the government can't enforce this law...Period. 200 years ago the Congress itself approved the acquiring of thousands of bibles because they found that Christianity was positive for society... but nothing positive comes from homosexuality and from any other sexual pervertion... we can conclude thaty we don't have to obey such a law protecting sexual perverts.
You missed my point. You were identifying some homosexuals posting unpleasant things on the internet and using that to condemn all homosexuals. I was pointing out the flaw in that logical leap by showing how it would be equally flawed to use the same logic to condemn all internet posters. It obviously didn't "appear from nothing". Just because you don't know the history of such laws doesn't mean that history ceases to exist. I don't know either but I guarantee the information is out there if you really wanted to find out. I doubt you will. I think that's the wrong way around. You don't have to prove a characteristic is positive before preventing discrimination, you have to prove a characteristic is harmful to permit it. Surely the starting point should be treating all humans equally and any form of discrimination be the exception. Is everything the US Congress has ever approved automatically right? I didn't realise it was the sole arbiter of all that it good and moral. That's your opinion. If we work on the principle that we can ignore laws we personally object to, we'd descend in to anarchy. You're perfectly entitled to make a positive argument against treating homosexuals as equal human beings and push for changes to the law on that basis though. If you expect to achieve anything on that though, I'd suggest you need to significantly improve your information gathering and arguments.
But its not Federally protected, in fact the requirement is equality if there is a benefit such as marriage for one group opposite gender couplings they must treat same sex couples the same, if they decide to not recognize marriage that would go away as a "right". In various states and local areas there may be laws but there is no Federal protections you can have a big sign for hiring - No gays may apply. Now other groups have clear protections disabled people, racial minorities, religious membership and so forth.
The protection of sexual orientation comes out of human rights. In the past everything besided the norm was seen to be "abnormal" or "sick". Since doctors refuse the complicity in victimizing everyone out of a social norm, it is more difficult for others to maintain why everybody must keep those norms. There is one clear and visible limit of tolerance: consent. Non consential sexual activities violate human rights of another individual and therefore must not be tolerated. One kind of non consential sexual activity is "pedophilia", another one is "rape". Animals normally have no right to say "no". That is more a matter of taste.
Sexual orientation doesn't apply to work, it's no concern for employers. Because people don't like LGBT, and will in effect discriminate against them, it became something that was covered under the 14th amendment.
In some cases it should NOT be covered. In fact, there even should be laws requiring discrimination when it comes to LGBTs where their presence in certain jobs would be improper (Ex. teaching, medical/dental, military, pro sports, anything dealing with children, anything in politics, etc) Also, open displays of homosexual sex (ex 2 guys kissing/necking) in public places (parks, restaurants, etc) should be banned as they are in Russia.
At least on the Federal level sexual orientation should not be protected because it is not immutable. You cannot change certain aspects of yourself such as race, gender, national origin and age........at least not without extensive surgery. Frankly I have a hard time with religion being a protected class because that is not immutable and fortunately SCOTUS ruled that religious organizations can in fact discriminate based on beliefs.
I think you're confusing pedophiles with LGBT. And if they're not allowed to kiss, then no one is as well.
