Tennessee Governor Signs Bill Overturning LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinance

you had to enact laws for discrimination..... JIM CROW SAYS HI AGAIN!!!!!! you know what the "free market" does not do, it does not dabble in social engineering, that is purely a political game.

surrealnumber5

Except Jim Crow laws were put in place to discriminate based on race in the first place....not get rid of it. It's the antithesis of the laws I'm talking about. If you can't see the difference between laws saying you can't higher based on skin color compared to not allowing blacks to integrate with white people....then I really don't know what to say.

1) Law 1 says you can discriminate based on immutable trait.

2) Law 2 says you can't discriminate based on immutable trait.

Big difference.

Isn't discrimination illegal to begin with?

Why do you need an ordinance declaring a crime like discrimination as officially being illegal in the first place?

I disagree with overturning the ordinance.

But I also disagree with wasting money on this whole issue to begin with since it should be a GIVEN that discrimination is unconstitutional.

Netherscourge

The Constitution restricts government, not private citizens...

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Isn't discrimination illegal to begin with?

Why do you need an ordinance declaring a crime like discrimination as officially being illegal in the first place?

I disagree with overturning the ordinance.

But I also disagree with wasting money on this whole issue to begin with since it should be a GIVEN that discrimination is unconstitutional.

SpartanMSU

The Constitution restricts government, not private citizens...

Exactly.

You yourself (Hoopla) said you believe that the goal of a business is to make money and they hire people generally based on that...Do you see the contradiction yet?

SpartanMSU

Of course money is the bottom line, it's the life blood of the economy. I've never stated otherwise.

What I'm disagreeing with here is that you seem to think that discriminatory practices will be weeded out "magically" in the market place thus these laws aren't needed. That really hasn't been the case.

In many cases discrimination can help make a company money (Note that I'm not saying ALL cases).

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Exactly.

You yourself (Hoopla) said you believe that the goal of a business is to make money and they hire people generally based on that...Do you see the contradiction yet?

HoolaHoopMan

Of course money is the bottom line, it's the life blood of the economy. I've never stated otherwise.

What I'm disagreeing with here is that you seem to think that discriminatory practices will be weeded out "magically" in the market place thus these laws aren't needed. That really hasn't been the case.

In many cases discrimination can help make a company money (Note that I'm not saying ALL cases).

But it goes against what you said yourself...why the hell do you think I wanted you to answer those questions?:D

Mahaha, oh gosh this is funny stuff! Good ole Tennessee...

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Exactly.

You yourself (Hoopla) said you believe that the goal of a business is to make money and they hire people generally based on that...Do you see the contradiction yet?

SpartanMSU

Of course money is the bottom line, it's the life blood of the economy. I've never stated otherwise.

What I'm disagreeing with here is that you seem to think that discriminatory practices will be weeded out "magically" in the market place thus these laws aren't needed. That really hasn't been the case.

In many cases discrimination can help make a company money (Note that I'm not saying ALL cases).

But it goes against what you said yourself...why the hell do you think I wanted you to answer those questions?:D

? I posted this earlier...

"As if the free market would magically make all the racist companies/venues disappear. It's pure plain stinky BS. If the free market were so good at getting rid of crappy working conditions and racist attitudes like you said, we wouldn't have needed to start making some of these laws in the first place. How well did the free market do when getting rid of child labor? Oh wait it didn't."

I made it clear that I don't think racist, sexist, or homophobic companies would be lost to the free market. I've argued that these discriminatory policies would continue in a market given the opportunity. You stated the opposite, that the market would get rid of them, no? What exactly have I gone against?

What else did you expect from a "rebel" state?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

you had to enact laws for discrimination..... JIM CROW SAYS HI AGAIN!!!!!! you know what the "free market" does not do, it does not dabble in social engineering, that is purely a political game.

HoolaHoopMan

Except Jim Crow laws were put in place to discriminate based on race in the first place....not get rid of it. It's the antithesis of the laws I'm talking about. If you can't see the difference between laws saying you can't higher based on skin color compared to not allowing blacks to integrate with white people....then I really don't know what to say.

1) Law 1 says you can discriminate based on immutable trait.

2) Law 2 says you can't discriminate based on immutable trait.

Big difference.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Of course money is the bottom line, it's the life blood of the economy. I've never stated otherwise.

What I'm disagreeing with here is that you seem to think that discriminatory practices will be weeded out "magically" in the market place thus these laws aren't needed. That really hasn't been the case.

In many cases discrimination can help make a company money (Note that I'm not saying ALL cases).

HoolaHoopMan

But it goes against what you said yourself...why the hell do you think I wanted you to answer those questions?:D

? I posted this earlier...

"As if the free market would magically make all the racist companies/venues disappear. It's pure plain stinky BS. If the free market were so good at getting rid of crappy working conditions and racist attitudes like you said, we wouldn't have needed to start making some of these laws in the first place. How well did the free market do when getting rid of child labor? Oh wait it didn't."

I made it clear that I don't think racist, sexist, or homophobic companies would be lost to the free market. I've argued that these discriminatory policies would continue in a market given the opportunity. You stated the opposite, that the market would get rid of them, no? What exactly have I gone against?

What you yourself said was the motives and tendencies of businesses in a capitalistic economy...(through the questions I asked you).

so it is ok to say higher X based off of skin Y, but it is not ok to say don't higher X because of skin Y, and it is most assuredly not ok to say there should not be a law to tell you who should and should not employ

surrealnumber5

It's quite obvious you don't share the same point of view as me.

I DO NOT think it should be legal to turn someone down for a job based on immutable traits like sex, race, orientation etc, you do however. Rather I believe skills sets and education would be more important.

Bolded: Again, child labor would come into play. Would you be okay with that?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

so it is ok to say higher X based off of skin Y, but it is not ok to say don't higher X because of skin Y, and it is most assuredly not ok to say there should not be a law to tell you who should and should not employ

HoolaHoopMan

It's quite obvious you don't share the same point of view as me.

I DO NOT think it should be legal to turn someone down for a job based on immutable traits like sex, race, orientation etc, you do however. Rather I believe skills sets and education would be more important.

Bolded: Again, child labor would come into play. Would you be okay with that?

Of course he would. The free market is never wrong :D

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

But it goes against what you said yourself...why the hell do you think I wanted you to answer those questions?:D

SpartanMSU

? I posted this earlier...

"As if the free market would magically make all the racist companies/venues disappear. It's pure plain stinky BS. If the free market were so good at getting rid of crappy working conditions and racist attitudes like you said, we wouldn't have needed to start making some of these laws in the first place. How well did the free market do when getting rid of child labor? Oh wait it didn't."

I made it clear that I don't think racist, sexist, or homophobic companies would be lost to the free market. I've argued that these discriminatory policies would continue in a market given the opportunity. You stated the opposite, that the market would get rid of them, no? What exactly have I gone against?

What you yourself said was the motives and tendencies of businesses in a capitalistic economy...(through the questions I asked you).

Yeah....and? That in no way conflicts with my earlier statements. The issue was the ability of the free market to weed out discriminatory practices on its own.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

? I posted this earlier...

"As if the free market would magically make all the racist companies/venues disappear. It's pure plain stinky BS. If the free market were so good at getting rid of crappy working conditions and racist attitudes like you said, we wouldn't have needed to start making some of these laws in the first place. How well did the free market do when getting rid of child labor? Oh wait it didn't."

I made it clear that I don't think racist, sexist, or homophobic companies would be lost to the free market. I've argued that these discriminatory policies would continue in a market given the opportunity. You stated the opposite, that the market would get rid of them, no? What exactly have I gone against?

HoolaHoopMan

What you yourself said was the motives and tendencies of businesses in a capitalistic economy...(through the questions I asked you).

Yeah....and? That in no way conflicts with my earlier statements. The issue was the ability of the free market to weed out discriminatory practices on its own.

Yes it does...

Yes it does...

SpartanMSU

My earlier statements have all revolved the free markets inability to weed out sex, race, orientation discrimination, and I've stated that it's due to a companies strive for money i.e. we don't care if a company has ***y business practices if we save a few bucks.

I've even explicitly stated that its a result of obtaining MONEY, the main motivation in any economy. :?

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

so it is ok to say higher X based off of skin Y, but it is not ok to say don't higher X because of skin Y, and it is most assuredly not ok to say there should not be a law to tell you who should and should not employ

HoolaHoopMan

It's quite obvious you don't share the same point of view as me.

I DO NOT think it should be legal to turn someone down for a job based on immutable traits like sex, race, orientation etc, you do however. Rather I believe skills sets and education would be more important.

Bolded: Again, child labor would come into play. Would you be okay with that?

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yes it does...

HoolaHoopMan

My earlier statements have all revolved the free markets inability to weed out sex, race, orientation discrimination, and I've stated that it's due to a companies strive for money i.e. we don't care if a company has ***y business practices if we save a few bucks.

I've even explicitly stated that its a result of obtaining MONEY, the main motivation in any economy. :?

He doesn't understand the concept of a negative externality. Discrimination is a negative externality of production. When there is a negative externality in the production of a good or service, a company will overproduce.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yes it does...

HoolaHoopMan

My earlier statements have all revolved the free markets inability to weed out sex, race, orientation discrimination, and I've stated that it's due to a companies strive for money i.e. we don't care if a company has ***y business practices if we save a few bucks.

I've even explicitly stated that its a result of obtaining MONEY, the main motivation in any economy. :?

What? That makes no sense. Why would a company not hire a gay person if they are the best candidate for the job, which would intern help them make/save money (which YOU stated was the goal of every business). So you are saying that the goals of businesses is more than making money? Because that definitely just goes agaisnt what you said...

Do you get it now?

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

imetamonster

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

imetamonster

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

imetamonster

[QUOTE="imetamonster"]

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

surrealnumber5

It unequivocally DOES harm them.

[QUOTE="imetamonster"]

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

surrealnumber5

But Is this about gays? I thought the TC said something about LGBs which makes me think it only affects the military or national guard?

Oh great. Just another obstacle... When will they just give it up? Iv come to the point that almost every person i meet that is against gaysi just lose a great deal of respect for them. To me its no different than being rascistor sexist. I dont really feel like respecting someone who is rascist or sexist. Same with people against homo-sexuality.

[QUOTE="imetamonster"]

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

whipassmt

I agree :)

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="imetamonster"]

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

imetamonster

I agree :)

What? That makes no sense. Why would a company not hire a gay person if they are the best candidate for the job, which would intern help them make/save money (which YOU stated was the goal of every business). So you are saying that the goals of businesses is more than making money? Because that definitely just goes agaisnt what you said...

Do you get it now?

SpartanMSU

I've been getting it, you just haven't been understanding what I'M saying.

Bolded: I'm not saying companies will purposely not hire someone based on race if it loses them money (Then again there were plenty of store owners not willing the let black people frequent them, something that would lose them money).

What I'm saying is that there are cases where it's in the companies best interests to discriminate because it will be the BETTER financial decision; aka hiring a child is a ****y business practice, however it was very profitable in many circumstances. This is the reason why some practices and discrimination would not be expunged from the free market with out some sort of regulations/laws.

I've explained myself plenty of times, if you don't get this then I don't know what to say other than be done with you.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="imetamonster"]

Is this for the gays or not? I dont understand from what i read so far :(

If its for the gays, Good.

If its not, thats not good.

Choga

It unequivocally DOES harm them.

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] I see; so it would be fine to tell black people to get out of the bus because "everyone discriminates" now?Theokhoth

blind people can't get drivers licenses. That is discrimination.

You are forgetting that there is a difference betwixt just discrimination and unjust discrimination.

Moreover what does rights and discrimination have to do with military munitions (LGBs specifically) which I take it this law is about?

If you think passing anti-discrimination laws STOPS discrimination, you are living in fantasy land.

For example: my company is in the process of looking for a technician to hire. We will not even consider someone if we suspect they are over 40. Yes, that is age discrimination, but, the job requires a lot of physical exertion in hot/cold and nasty environments. Its a young person's job. Besides, if you are 40 or older and looking at this job, you are, in my opinion, a loser.

Now understand, we don't "officially" reject someone who is over 40. But you ain't gettin the job, thats for sure.

In fact,anti discrimination laws have a tendency to create discrimination where it would not have existed without the law.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a black job applicant get passed over because: "Well, if he turns out to be a worthless SOB, I don't want to get sued for letting him go." The idea is, don't bring them in the company and then you don't have to worry about hiring a lawyer to get rid of them if they don't work out.

One last thought: Oh gee, look. Another "dem evil republicans is hatin on us gays" thread from Theo. Who would have thought that would happen :roll:

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] its for no special treatment, it does not harm gay people and it does not elevate them

SpartanMSU

It unequivocally DOES harm them.

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

What? That makes no sense. Why would a company not hire a gay person if they are the best candidate for the job, which would intern help them make/save money (which YOU stated was the goal of every business). So you are saying that the goals of businesses is more than making money? Because that definitely just goes agaisnt what you said...

Do you get it now?

HoolaHoopMan

I've been getting it, you just haven't been understanding what I'M saying.

Bolded: I'm not saying companies will purposely not hire someone based on race if it loses them money (Then again there were plenty of store owners not willing the let black people frequent them, something that would lose them money).

What I'm saying is that there are cases where it's in the companies best interests to discriminate because it will be the BETTER financial decision; aka hiring a child is a ****y business practice, however it was very profitable in many circumstances. This is the reason why some practices and discrimination would not be expunged from the free market with out some sort of regulations/laws.

I've explained myself plenty of times, if you don't get this then I don't know what to say other than be done with you.

We aren't talking about child labor...I don't even see how that has anything to do with discrimination based on race, sexual preference, gender, religion, etc...

I mean, this law is about LGBTs anyways...sooo.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Choga"]

It unequivocally DOES harm them.

Choga

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

blind people can't get drivers licenses. That is discrimination.

You are forgetting that there is a difference betwixt just discrimination and unjust discrimination.

Moreover what does rights and discrimination have to do with military munitions (LGBs specifically) which I take it this law is about?

whipassmt

The difference there being the ability to see if essential to driving. Someone's skin color isn't going to affect their driving ability.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Choga"]

It unequivocally DOES harm them.

Choga

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

whipassmt

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Asmuch asi dont like how that sounds. True. Though i hope most people wouldnt think like that lol

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Choga"]

It unequivocally DOES harm them.

Choga

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

blind people can't get drivers licenses. That is discrimination.

You are forgetting that there is a difference betwixt just discrimination and unjust discrimination.

Moreover what does rights and discrimination have to do with military munitions (LGBs specifically) which I take it this law is about?

HoolaHoopMan

The difference there being the ability to see if essential to driving. Someone's skin color isn't going to affect their driving ability.

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

SpartanMSU

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

SpartanMSU

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

Because as a society we value equal opportunity. And "best person for the job" is very misleading, since the best person for a homophobic employer is someone who isn't gay.

We aren't talking about child labor...I don't even see how that has anything to do with discrimination based on race, sexual preference, gender, religion, etc...

I mean, this law is about LGBTs anyways...sooo.

SpartanMSU

It's relevant when discussing laws that are specifically aimed at who employers can and cannot hire. If you're a staunch supporter of a company being able to hire who ever and for whatever reason child labor shouldn't be an issue for you.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Choga"]

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Choga

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

Because as a society we value equal opportunity. And "best person for the job" is very misleading, since the best person for a homophobic employer is someone who isn't gay.

I'm trying to understand why sexual orientation is not considered as important as race?

It's cool to make a law banning discrimination against people who are not white, but it's not cool to make a law banning discrimination against people who are not straight?

I think that's where the problem lies.

Some people, whether it be religion, personal agenda or just plain bigotry, think sexual orientation is a choice... and that people who are gay/lesbian don't deserve equal rights, which these people claim is "special treatment".

What a sad country we live in...

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

The government isn't using it's police power to coerce either side (the employer or the employee) into what they feel is right though. You can't force people to not be racist/homophobes/etc. It's not illegal to be racist/homophobe or whatever. We don't have ThoughtCrime here...yet.

However, I believe that the state shouldn't make a blanket law here either, denying the cities of what they want to do.

SpartanMSU

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

Some businesses i can see making racist/homophobic decisions whether it does good for them or not. I can see alot of managers that are racist or homophobic not hire a african-american or gay person even if they were great for the job. Its not in there best interest, but some people hate on certain minority groups pertty bad.

Which is why I said there is a difference betwixt Just discrimination and unjust discrimination. Saying blind people are not allowed to drive is a form of just discrimination while saying black people are not allowed to drive is a form of unjust discrimination. Now the real question is would it be just or unjust discrimination not to allow women to drive, since they are supposedly crappier drivers (although statistically they get in less accidents if I'm correct).

whipassmt

Bolded: Well you've kinda just defeated your analogy there. Women are statistically better drivers than men, reason why men's car insurance costs more on average I believe.

"Just" discrimination is perfectly fine if a person isn't up to task given a jobs requirements, it's just when said discrimination takes place due to more of an immutable trait like not hiring blacks, women, gays etc.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Choga"]

However it should be illegal to discriminate based on whatever backwards opinions a person has about race/gender/sexuality etc.

Choga

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

Because as a society we value equal opportunity. And "best person for the job" is very misleading, since the best person for a homophobic employer is someone who isn't gay.

Moreover it's possible that being an active homosexual may disqualify one for a certain job based on that jobs qualifications. For instance Canon Law specifies that a teacher in a Catholic school must be known for their "moral probity" and since homosexual activities violate Church teaching then those who engage in them are not known for their "moral probity" and hence not qualified for the job of teaching in a Catholic School.

I'm trying to understand why sexual orientation is not considered as important as race?

It's cool to make a law banning discrimination against people who are not white, but it's not cool to make a law banning discrimination against people who are not straight?

I think that's where the problem lies.

Some people, whether it be religion, personal agenda or just plain bigotry, think sexual orientation is a choice... and that people who are gay/lesbian don't deserve equal rights, which these people claim is "special treatment".

What a sad country we live in...

Netherscourge

I honestly have never seen a straight person be discriminated against because he/she is straight. Almost everyday at my school i probably hear around 20 homophobic statements. Not to me but just to gays in general.

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Why? Why should a gun be put to a businesses head making them hire a person who they don't want to? You think this is going to stop them from being idiotic racists? You think it's even in the businesses best interest to discriminate based stupid reasons? Probably not, considering it's in the best interest of the business to hire the best person for the job.

whipassmt

Because as a society we value equal opportunity. And "best person for the job" is very misleading, since the best person for a homophobic employer is someone who isn't gay.

Moreover it's possible that being an active homosexual may disqualify one for a certain job based on that jobs qualifications. For instance Canon Law specifies that a teacher in a Catholic school must be known for their "moral probity" and since homosexual activities violate Church teaching then those who engage in them are not known for their "moral probity" and hence not qualified for the job of teaching in a Catholic School.

Oh boy... I do disagree with you on this one :(

Alot actually...

Might have actually just changed my mind on the subject. Oh the goodness of conversation!

Mean no disrespect. :)

Another question:

What business owner/manager would openly admit to NOT hiring a person BECAUSE they were gay or lesbian?

What business over would fire someone if they discovered they were gay/lesbian?

More than likely, the law would be irrelevant - the business owner/manager would just make up a "legit" reason for not hiring or firing the gay/lesbian person. They wouldn't even giv a reason. They would simply say "The position was filled". Or if they "came out" at work, the owner/manager would dig up something to use to get rid of them.

Sure, they could be sued if there was suspicion of discrimination, but how the hell would you prove it without direct quotes and/or a legit witness?

In the end, this governor is just playing to his conservative base. I doubt he even cares one way or the other. If his base supported it, he would have approved it without a second thought.

Politics is the most superficial arena in the country. Nobody truely supports anything independently of their own voter base. It's all about the flavor of the month.