Sex-Orientation Discrimination Bill

[afleitch]

Here's my opinion, as someone who if American would be affected by this bill.

IF we have to have laws covering discrimination based on sex and race for example we should also have those laws extended to cover sexual orientation. However, if we abolished all laws relating to discrimination that could possibly be acceptable. Yet it is likely that such laws will remain in place for the forseeable future, so I would support the bill as a result.  I agree it is either 'all' or 'nothing.'

[afleitch]

I agree it is either 'all' or 'nothing.'

And yet you have not explained why that makes any sense. Why is more of a bad thing better than less of a bad thing?

If we outlaw one kind of speech, should we outlaw it all?

What do you mean 'outlaw one kind of speech?' It's not about that, it is about ending 'discrimination' within the workplace and structures of employment. People can still have an anti-gay rant in the streets if they wish to. Why anyone would not hire someone simply because they were gay puzzles me, but it does happen.

I'm not a fan of laws like these, but there is no middle ground. You either include sexual orientation within discrimination laws or you have no laws at all IMO - all or nothing.

[afleitch]

If America, or any other western nation I might add, was mature enough to not hold someone back from a job because they did not like their sexuality, there would be no need for any such laws. Until attitudes change (and change they will) these laws will have to remain in place. So if they have to remain in place they may as well be consistent until such times as they are not needed. So once again - 'all or nothing.' You might not like my reasoning, but I don't have to explain it any more than I have done.

[afleitch]

Actually, you just abandoned your earlier assertion that these laws are bad. Obviously, if you think these laws are good, then I can understand. It was your earlier position that was insanely stupid, and I thank you for recanting it.

My assertion was that such laws are bad because they lack consistency in their application. Once again- you either bring them up to speed by including sexual orientation or you scrap the whole lot. But they never will be scrapped at least in the forseeable future, so you have to reach a concensus based on current opinion. My position is not 'insanely stupid' and I think your own argument would be more agreeable if you didn't resort to childish jarbs

[afleitch]

Your earlier position that these laws are bad, but that we need more of them is what was insanely stupid. I can understand your new position.

In your mind it's a new position, but not in mine. If you don't agree it's fine by me.

[afleitch]

Excellent news. Anything that pis*es of Anita Bryant gets my full support

[afleitch]

Good news

[afleitch]

It is if you hate freedom

If you love freedom and liberty, you should be overjoyed at the prospect of a whole group of people being liberated from the threat of discrimination

[afleitch]

It is if you hate freedom

If you love freedom and liberty, you should be overjoyed at the prospect of a whole group of people being liberated from the threat of discrimination

Maybe you should be overjoyed at the prospect of reinstituting slavery, since a whole group of people (slaveowners) would be 'liberated' from having to work.

So you're comparing homosexuals to slave owners now?

[afleitch]

It is if you hate freedom

If you love freedom and liberty, you should be overjoyed at the prospect of a whole group of people being liberated from the threat of discrimination

Maybe you should be overjoyed at the prospect of reinstituting slavery, since a whole group of people (slaveowners) would be 'liberated' from having to work.

So you're comparing homosexuals to slave owners now?

The argument is that, just as slaves were forced to work against their will, bigots are being forced to serve customers against their will.

I thought as much. But it's an awful analogy.

[afleitch]

It is if you hate freedom

If you love freedom and liberty, you should be overjoyed at the prospect of a whole group of people being liberated from the threat of discrimination

Maybe you should be overjoyed at the prospect of reinstituting slavery, since a whole group of people (slaveowners) would be 'liberated' from having to work.

Spend less time arguing about how gays should not be included, and more time about how the entire "anti-discrimination" thing should be abolished.

Or you could keep pretending to be a Libertarian, if you want.

I am not 'pretending' to be a libertarian. But I do deal with reality rather than in theory, and in practice there is no way we can allow people to simply discriminate against whom they choose or half the country would probably be out of work and spend each day being knocked back from every establishment in their local community!

[afleitch]

^ I was replying to Philip.

I'm sorry :/ Please accept my apologies, i often get wound up tight over issues close to my heart.

I may as well take 5 and have a cup of tea

[afleitch]

I don't know what you're even talking about, but you're a fag, so shut up.

That was uncalled for, and I was very close to reporting it. But if thats the strength of your argument- just giving up and exchanging insults then it's not even worth me reporting.

[afleitch]

Uh, that wasn't an 'argument.' I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand.

You don't just call someone a 'fag, so shut up.' when you get stuck for things to say!