What About Minority Groups?

[millwx]

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?

I don't know whether to laugh at you or vomit.  While there are a handful of exceptions (Snowe, Jeffords - until he bolted, Collins, Specter - to a lesser degree, McCain - to a lesser degree, Chafee, etc), the Republicans have a laughable record on diversity.  This is not meant as a defense of Democrats.  Their pandering to minorities with entitlement handouts is disgusting.

But what party is typically the one taking up inner city issues (thich tends to impact minorities more)?  Democrats.  How has Bush's reduced funding to the nations cities affected them?  Visit Richmond some time.  Ask the citizens there.  The Republicans have cut funds going to police forces, requiring cutbacks.  The result is predictable.  Crime rates in many cities (like Richmond) have been on the rise.  This overwhelmingly impacts minorities.

And how about gays.  O.k., o.k., I know many Republicans will argue that they're not "minorities".  Nice out.  Do you realize that because the ENDA bill never passed (solely because of Republican opposition) a gay or lesbian person can be fired from their job simply because the boss "doesn't like queers"?  That's right, getting fired on the basis of sexual orientation, completely non-work related, is perfectly acceptable to most Republican law makers.  Federal workers are protected based on an executive order from Clinton (and, surprisingly, not repealed by Bush), as are many private workers simply because of company policy.  But as a matter of law, they are not protected.  Yeah, that's wonderfully fair.  I am a manager in my workplace, responsible for hiring and firing, so I have a pretty good perspective on this.  It is repugnant and inhuman that someone can strip another person of their livelihood based on sexual orientation!  I don't care how "conservative" one is.  Most Republican lawmakers think this is fine and dandy and wouldn't want to infringe on "employer's rights".  Give me a break.

[millwx]

In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms."  However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government."  No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive.  This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.  

Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic.  It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs.  Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.  

I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level.  Would it be "fair?"  Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.  

Similar is with "gay rights."  If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.  

So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day.  Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations.  They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others.  Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.  

*I'll throw this little disclaimer in:  I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle.  Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic.  Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*

MODU, while I respect your opinion (it was presented far more "logically" than the starter of this thread in terms of minorities in general), there are a few problems...

1) The "keep govt out of the bedroom" idea was a Republican idea!  What happened?  The religious right happened.

2) You make a MASSIVE leap that since there is no proof that being gay is genetic it must be a choice.  For one thing, there have been some bits and pieces of evidence suggesting that it might be genetic... or partially so.  For another thing, genetic science is in its infancy.  Just because something has not been proven to be genetic it is not safe to assume it is not genetic.  As a result, there is, likewise, no proof that being gay is a choice.

3) Even if it is a choice, you make a very correct leap to compare it to religion.  Here's my problem... I, too, don't care to get off on some major discussion about being gay.  My point was regarding simple job protection.  Not entitlements or "special" rights or anything else.  If being gay is a choice, the religion parallel is superbly correct... especially since most opposition to homosexuality comes out of religion.  Well..... it IS illegal to fire someone on the basis of religion!  The precisely same treatment should be afforded to sexual orientation.  The Republicans, in general, oppose this.  That was my point.  I'm not trying to argue for or against gay marriage, civil unions, genetics versus choice, etc, etc, etc.  I'm simply talking about job protection.  Religion, a choice, is protected.  Sexual orientation should be as well.  Period.  As for "checking it at the door", that is WAY, OVERLY simplistic.  People (co-workers, bosses, etc) CAN find out by accident... in or out of the workplace.  That's why there is legal protection based on religion and needs to be based on sexual orientation.  Your parallel is an excellent one.  Problem is, there is protection for one of the groups, but not for the other.  And Republicans solely have blocked that protection.

[millwx]

We should me for lunch.  Possibly turn DC "green" like we have with Maryland and Virginia.  hahaha

DC green?  Never.    Maybe we can go to Delaware and try there, that's an easier prospect.  Actually, I should be "yellow" (Libertarian).  But many "yellows" are "yellow" for gun rights purposes and "blue" on most other issues.  Drives me nuts.  I have no "home".    So, I'm "green".  I'm a true "yellow" and an old fashioned "blue".  Which is funny, because it forces me to hold my nose and vote "red" most of the time.    What happens when you mix "yellow", "red", and "blue"?  I think you just get "white".  I guess I'm just "white".  

[millwx]

Sexual orientation is determined in early infancy and in the womb. There might be a genetic component but don't count on it. (If there is, there is a parallel to eye and hair colour.) It's not deprogrammable.
 

I agree.  But I was trying not to start that whole argument here.       I was trying to keep it to policies and politics... using the issue of job protection for gays.

I blame MODU , he brought up the choice versus genes issue.  I was merely trying to point out that Reps don't sincerely embrace/support diversity.  They did in the 1960s (and earlier).  No longer.

[millwx]

hahaha . . . just too funny.  

Maybe during the convention they'll share an "Al & Tipper" moment.