Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[chappy]

I'm still unclear, are you saying that "race" for whatever definition you are claiming for that word (and assuming I agree that it has more value as a definer of rights than hair color--which I'm pretty sure I don't) has been justifiably used to grant more rights to one individual over another?

Notice that I use the adverb justifiably.

[chappy]

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200210100

Social Security Administration:

GN 00210.100 Same-Sex Marriage - Benefits for Aged Spouses

[Zeta-Flux]

Sorry I wasn't more clear. In my opinion, race has been justifiably given more protections than hair-color only because historically race has been the source of major persecution whereas hair-color has not been the source of such acts. If people started acting in a similar manner towards hair-color, then it would probably become a protected classification as well.

Similarly, historically religious belief has been the source of extreme persecution, but being a platonist has not. One of the founding principles of the United States was to protect the right to believe as you wish without government interference. I view this in a more comprehensive way as protecting the right of conscience (which would include your philosopher).

This is, of course, just one of many reasons to protect the right of conscience.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Sorry I wasn't more clear. In my opinion, race has been justifiably given more protections than hair-color only because historically race has been the source of major persecution whereas hair-color has not been the source of such acts.

But homosexuality _has_ been the target of major persecution, with numerous gays being killed simply because they're gay.
Why should it not have the same status as race in regard to discrimination?

If people started acting in a similar manner towards hair-color, then it would probably become a protected classification as well.

So, are you granting that since people have, for a long time, been acting in a similar (to race) manner towards homosexuality, then it should also be a protected classification?

Similarly, historically religious belief has been the source of extreme persecution, but being a platonist has not. One of the founding principles of the United States was to protect the right to believe as you wish without government interference.

believe - yes, act (i.e., discrimination) - no. The proposed bill would protect discriminatory actions; vetoing it requires no one to change beliefs.

(Laws against theft don't require anyone to give up a belief that theft is okay; they just provide punishment for people who act on that belief by actually stealing.)

Therefore, characterization of the proposed bill as being for protection of "religious freedom" is, and always has been, just a sham. Religious freedom was not what was being protected by the proposed bill. Backers who claimed that the bill protected religious freedom were either ignorant or lying. Discriminatory action was what was being protected by the proposed bill.

This is, of course, just one of many reasons to protect the right of conscience.

No one's threatening the right of conscience.

What's at question here are acts of discrimination, not beliefs or conscience. The provisions of the proposed bill were plainly aimed at protecting discriminatory actions, not beliefs or conscience.

If a businessperson's conscience prevents him/her from treating gay customers the same as non-gay customers, that person needs to find some other way of making a living, or do it in some other legal jurisdiction, ... or examine his/her conscience to determine just what proper and equitable basis there is for discriminating against gays. A religion that teaches discrimination against gays is a religion that deserves no followers.

[Zeta-Flux]

But homosexuality _has_ been the target of major persecution, with numerous gays being killed simply because they're gay.
Why should it not have the same status as race in regard to discrimination?

That is a good question. First, my comment about persecution was with respect to governmental persecution. There was a time in this country where there were laws forcing people to discriminate against blacks. Similarly, many people fled from Europe to the United States because their home country's laws prevented the free exercise of their religion. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

In the United States, there are no laws against being homosexual. Those who do persecute to the level of violent acts are punished, and not protected, by the law.

believe - yes, act (i.e., discrimination) - no. The proposed bill would protect discriminatory actions; vetoing it requires no one to change beliefs.

(Laws against theft don't require anyone to give up a belief that theft is okay; they just provide punishment for people who act on that belief by actually stealing.)

Therefore, characterization of the proposed bill as being for protection of "religious freedom" is, and always has been, just a sham. Religious freedom was not what was being protected by the proposed bill. Backers who claimed that the bill protected religious freedom were either ignorant or lying. Discriminatory action was what was being protected by the proposed bill.

No one's threatening the right of conscience.

What's at question here are acts of discrimination, not beliefs or conscience. The provisions of the proposed bill were plainly aimed at protecting discriminatory actions, not beliefs or conscience.

I appreciate your viewpoint, and can see that you believe as you do. And on some points I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

However, on the point that freedom of religion consists only in the ability to believe, but not act, according to the dictates of our conscience, I completely and utterly disagree. A society needs rules to keep the peace, but those don't include forcing a business to support abortion, for example. Or force a wedding photographer to participate in an event that photographer would not consider a wedding. Or to force an artist to create a piece of art against their conscience.

If you would consider these acts "discriminatory", then indeed I support the freedom to discriminate, even in business. However, I think most people (including judges) can see the difference between claiming that these actions would substantially burden a sincere religious belief, whereas claiming you couldn't serve someone because they were effeminate would not be a substantial burden, nor motivated out of a sincere religious belief.

[Brian-E]

That was in response to cheesehead, but I can't resist butting in here.

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

That is a good question. First, my comment about persecution was with respect to governmental persecution. There was a time in this country where there were laws forcing people to discriminate against blacks. Similarly, many people fled from Europe to the United States because their home country's laws prevented the free exercise of their religion. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

In the United States, there are no laws against being homosexual. Those who do persecute to the level of violent acts are punished, and not protected, by the law.

My knowledge of USA history is very poor, but I know enough to be sure that this idea that gay people have never been directly discriminated by law in the USA does not stand up. What about the freedom of the armed forces not to discriminate against openly gay people when taking people into service? This freedom (let alone requirement) not to discriminate against gay people has only be in force since 2011.

Aside from this inaccuracy, why would it matter if gay people had never been discriminated by government or forced by law to be discriminated? Why would that make this discrimination okay whereas racial discrimination needs to be outlawed?

I appreciate your viewpoint, and can see that you believe as you do. And on some points I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

However, on the point that freedom of religion consists only in the ability to believe, but not act, according to the dictates of our conscience, I completely and utterly disagree. A society needs rules to keep the peace, but those don't include forcing a business to support abortion, for example.

Refusing to support abortion does not involve discrimination. This is a different type of issue. Unless an abortion clinic were, for example, to refuse abortions to lesbians while offering them to other women, which would be discrimination and should certainly be outlawed.

Or force a wedding photographer to participate in an event that photographer would not consider a wedding.

If a photographer boycotts mixed race weddings because he/she does not consider them weddings, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed. I see no difference between that and refusing to offer the services at same sex weddings.

Or to force an artist to create a piece of art against their conscience.

That depends. Artists should of course be free to create whatever they wish to. But if an artist sets up a business whereby he or she paints people's portraits, but then proceeds to decline certain customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, then that is discrimination.

[chappy]

It's true that the last Federal ban on consensual sodomy was repealed all the way back in December of 2013. So I don't know why we are even talking about it still.

Of course that same law contained some troubling language that will become more and more meaningless as millennials continue to question the homophobia of their forefathers.

You might also remember way back in aught 3, if you are old enough, when the Supreme Court ruled that all the state laws against consensual sex by homosexuals. (my state was one of 4 that said butt sex was okay as long as it's good old fashioned boy on girl action.)

At that time 14 states still had laws against consensual homosexual sex.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of all the legal rights granted to same sex couples which have historically (and continue to be) denied to same-sex couples. (examples include that a husband can't be compelled to testify against his wife in a court of law under most circumstances (spousal privilege) , visitation rights at hospitals, inheritance, insurance, public housing, etc.)

To pretend like the discrimination against homosexuals is a thing of the distant past, or that it wasn't pervasive in all levels of society all the way up to Federal Law is nonsense.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chappy

http://www.andrewturnbull.net/states.html

nice graphic of the state of the same-sex union.

(USA centric, I know.)

Thanks for that, Chap!

[Zeta-Flux]

Brian-E,

Refusing to support abortion does not involve discrimination.

And therein lies the crux of the entire problem. If you agree with it, it isn't discrimination. If you don't agree with it, it is discrimination.

Of course refusing to support abortion involves discrimination. So does making laws against drunk driving. So does deciding to help a poor neighbor.

Each and every one of these acts is an act of discrimination. You make a distinction between two things, and choose one over the other.

The only difference between justified discrimination and unjust discrimination is whether or not you think the judgement was made due to the class of people being discriminated against, or whether the decision was made on the merits of the proposition.

Take opposition to drunk driving. Your natural response would probably be that this doesn't involve (unjust) discrimination because the merits of the proposition are so obvious to you. Your opposition to drunk driving is not born out of a hatred of people who like drinking--it is born out of a respect of life. Similarly, opposition to stealing is not born out of a hatred of kleptomaniacs. While laws against stealing certainly affect kleptomaniacs more than the average Joe, the laws were not passed with them in mind, or out of any ill intent towards them.

Now take abortion. You said it didn't involve discrimination. In the negative sense of the word, I personally agree with you. But there is a major segment of the U.S. population which does not agree. They frame it as a "war on women". Opposition to abortion can only be born out of hatred for women because of a desire to control their sexual lives. I am not joking. That is how they frame the issue. For them, it is one of unjust, hate-filled discrimination.

Now, finally, take opposition to gay marriage. There are people who are opposed because they hate homosexuals. We can agree that those people are unjustly discriminating. Then there are those people who are opposed because they believe it will be negative for the marriage culture, and negative for children in particular. [We've gone through the reasoning here, ad naseum. So I'll let the rest of this thread speak on that issue.] Are these individuals discriminating (unjustly)? Are they judging the issue out of hatred for a class of individuals? Are they passing laws only to punish homosexuals? Or could it be that while homosexuals are indeed a large class affected by this restriction (but perhaps not even the biggest, if you include bisexuals, etc...) the opposition had nothing to do, per se, with any individual's personal sexual preferences?

It is sometimes difficult to separate one's proclivities from the actions taken due to those natural propensities. And some people think that indeed this separation cannot be done. If you discriminate against a behavior you are automatically discriminating against the class of people prone to said behavior. Thus, if you are against abortion you are automatically against women who choose abortions. If you choose not to support gay marriages you are a homophobe. Indeed, there have been numerous judicial rulings recently in the U.S. that say opposition to gay marriage could be motivated by no other possible motive than hatred.

If a photographer boycotts mixed race weddings because he/she does not consider them weddings, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed.

If a photographer boycotts arranged weddings between 40-year-olds and 10-year-olds because he/she finds them morally disturbing, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed.

That depends. Artists should of course be free to create whatever they wish to. But if an artist sets up a business whereby he or she paints people's portraits, but then proceeds to decline certain customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, then that is discrimination.

Probably unjustly so. And as I've said before I think businesses should be able to define their services. If the service is "I paint people's portraits" and they don't inquire into lifestyle's of their subjects, then they should paint the picture. If the artist's service has been "I only paint those whom I want to paint" then they should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever.

[Brian-E]

Thanks for the reply, Zeta-Flux. My impression now is that we really need to understand what we all mean by discrimination if this discussion is to be meaningful from now on.

Discrimination, to me, is arbitrarily treating a particular group of people differently from the rest of the population on the basis of an identifying characteristic of those people. That is the definition which I was using.

Being anti-abortion is not discrimination under this definition. No group of people is being arbitrarily discriminated and treated differently than the rest of the population. The attitude you describe at length above seems to refer to the idea of someone disapproving of abortion because that person discriminates against women generally. Thinking that no woman should be allowed an abortion is then the result of an idea that women are men's property and men therefore get to say what women may and may not do with their own lives. Being anti-abortion can sometimes, therefore, be a manifestation of a person's sex-discrimination, but it is not discrimination in itself, and very often it does not have anything to do with sex-discrimination anyway. It is quite possible to be a feminist and to believe that all abortions should be illegal.

If a photographer boycotts arranged weddings between 40-year-olds and 10-year-olds because he/she finds them morally disturbing, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed.

Now you're pushing it into areas of conscience in an undemocratic society which exploits certain individuals (in this case young children) for the benefit of others. Such a marriage would be illegal in democratic societies, because 10-year-olds are not able to make decisions about who to spend the rest of their lives with, nor are they mature enough to agree to the marriage on equal terms with the adult partner. If the photographer lives in an undemocratic society which does this, then all bets are off as to what constitutes discrimination.

And as I've said before I think businesses should be able to define their services. If the service is "I paint people's portraits" and they don't inquire into lifestyle's of their subjects, then they should paint the picture. If the artist's service has been "I only paint those whom I want to paint" then they should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever.

You and I have common ground here (though I'd like to note that loving someone of your own gender, or simply being LGBTI, is not a "lifestyle" just in case anyone reading the discussion thinks it is; it is part of who you are, your identity). And if a business offers the service "We cater for weddings" then it should cater for all weddings. If the service is a hotel, it should not discriminate on any irrelevant attribute such as race or sexual orientation about to which people it will offer a bed for the night. I'd like to point out that a painter-artist is a somewhat unusual example of someone offering a service in that he or she must apply highly subjective criteria to the question of which work they take on, art being such a personally creative occupation.

[kladner]

Bravo!