RMM wrote on my old boinky blog:
“Scott, community benefits, roads, fire department, etc. is why we pay taxes.”
Yes, but you also aren’t allowed to put up signs that are too large, make too much noise, put a business in a place zone for residence, etc. Community is more than paying taxes. There are rules that are created to make the community more pleasant and more successful. If you want those rules that benefit you, you have to follow rules that you may not like.
“Furthermore to claim that the autonomy of the individual, even the freedom to
be a hating idiot, threatens, "the economy" or "creates a permanent underclass:
is specious.”
Not hiring a group of people, limiting opportunities for them, & restricting where they can live absolutely improves the chances of creating an underclass. Seriously, you really don’t think that restricting where people can live, what we call “ghettoizing,” doesn’t create an underclass? Come now. Surely, you’ve heard of history? If bias and ghettoizing didn’t create the underclasses, what did do it in society after society across the globe and throughout time?
“Even during the 50's at the height of segregation, employers who refused to
hire blacks were hurting themselves more than their prospective employees.”
And yet they still did it and created an underclass of poor blacks.
“The economy is simply too damn competitive to stay competitive if your reduce
your hiring pool in such a way.”
No, it isn’t as evidenced by over 100 years of segregation and the continued presence of bias in hiring today. It was not long ago that a case in NYC found that an employment company in NYC was writing “good candidate” on applications of blacks so they would know not to send them to some interviews. Blacks (and gays even more so) represent a small enough percentage of the population that a company can be competitive and racist (or homophobic.) Moreover, in areas that are predominantly racist, a company would have an advantage gaining racist customers if they have racist hiring procedures.
“More to the point, these ideas violate all our rights. Should you be forced to
hire a man who believes all gay men should be killed outright? Of course not.”
No one should be forced to hire any particular person. But that is not the same as refusing to hire an entire protected class of people. If there was the threat of creating an underclass of homophobes, perhaps they -- as a class -- should be protected. I don’t see that being necessary right now, but maybe in the future. The courts have defined particular classes of people who are prone to become underclasses by prevailing bias. If there is not a prevailing bias that can create an underclass, the group of people is not protected and can be discriminated against for whatever attribute one might care to discriminate against them. Right now, homophobes are not a protected class, but religious affiliation is a protected class. In most cases, I should not be allowed to consider religion, even anti-gay religions, in my hiring because religious groups have been subjected to collective discrimination by communities, which has created underclasses. If you don’t believe me, ask any Jew. Catholics could tell you something too.
”So long as you do that, you deserve the benefits of being an American.”
I’m sorry, but weren’t you the one suggesting that gays should be excluded from one of the biggest employers in America, the military? If I follow the rules and pay my taxes, shouldn’t that benefit be available to me? Are governments allowed to discriminate in hiring? They are collectively the biggest employer in the US.
"The single best way for gays, or women, to be treated with respect, is for more
of them to achieve success.”
Agreed. But it’s not the only way and it becomes far more difficult to become successful if the culture suggests that they shouldn’t be hired, shouldn’t live in good neighborhoods, and shouldn’t be seen in public roles. You really don’t know what it’s like to be a minority. I can be fired if it is discovered that something having nothing whatsoever to do with my job is found out about me. That means that I not only loose my income, I loose my house because I can’t pay for it and I loose my insurance, which means that there is fair chance that I could loose my life because I have an odd genetic disease that I couldn’t afford to treat. I work for the state in a job that they could hire any number of other people to do so the idea of competition is kind of silly. I already was prevented for getting my dream job because a recruiter found out I was gay. She was a in your face Christian who loved me and even offered to hire me herself if the company she sent me to didn’t hire me. Then she found out I was gay and I never heard from her again. Not only did I not get that job, but I didn’t get any of the opportunities that job would have opened for me. So when you say that hiring bias won’t create an underclass, I have to tell you that you are full of shit. It does happen. We are hindered in our advancement.
“even the world’s biggest homophobe, if he’s a swimming fan, had to respect markMay I suggest to you that when it comes to being gay, I know a wee bit more about the problems that come along with that than you do, so maybe you shouldn’t tell me what I know? For instance, you are confusing Mark Spitz, who admittedly looks like Freddie Mercury, with Greg Louganis and “won’t play nice” is a particularly condescending term for losing your job, home, & insurance. If someone doesn’t want to play with me, that is fine. If I’m going to loose my income, home, & insurance, we’re in a different area.
spitz. But attempting to run to mommy gov and crying that the "straight white
boys" wont play nice, is the act of a child, not of a man. I know your better
than that scott.”
