Comments

1
This may sound kinda conservative, but is anyone else bothered by the proliferation of antidiscrimination laws? Not because people should be discriminated against, but because it seems like it's becoming increasingly necessarily to define the existence of discrete minorities in order to ensure people's rights. In other words, isn't it kinda backwards to have to create a specific antidiscrimination law when the presumption should go the other way - i.e. that a potential or current employer should be vulnerable to federal action or lawsuit unless they can demonstrate a compelling reason for firing/not hiring/whatever?

This is one reason to support the EEOC's decision here - make use of existing law rather than add redundant legislation.
2
Lame Duck president? What Lame Duck? Obama has been on a tear recently.
3
Dan wrote "...either Jeb! believes anti-LGBT bigots should have a special right to discriminate against LGBT people or Jeb! is huge fucking hypocrite."
I think that's a false dichotomy; both of those statements could be true.
4
@1 most states are employment-at-will, meaning that employers can hire/fire for any reason as long as it's not specifically protected (discrimination against a protected class, medical status, retaliation, etc).

Not having clear lines makes it hard for employers to fire bad employees for fear of lawsuits and hard for victims of discrimination to get representation because every case is a potential loser.
5
The whole "states should decide..." line is just something conservatives have to say about certain issues during the primaries so they don't have any embarrassing sound bites come back to bite them in the general election.

So I would not hold that against John Ellis per se, but of course that does not preclude the idea that he is also for discrimination against gays, or a hypocrite.
6
Logic + Republicans = WTF
7
I agree with Dan.

If they want discrimination against gay people to be at state discretion then they should allow the same for all discrimination.

I'll take one of the states rights a-holes seriously once they advocate for states being able to determine if you can discriminate based on religion. Until then it's just hypocrisy.
8
Hey Dan, you wanna talk about your buddy Andrew Sullivan and his promotion of The Bell Curve? And how you published that fucking racist piece of shit Sullivan in the Stranger/Slog?
9
The recent ruling on marriage made reference to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th's Equal Protection Clause about says it all...these additional statements are just clarification, or restatements.

10
@4 - I guess that makes sense. Just a shame that human nature, or capitalism, or something, seems to make parsing people into a growing number of protected sub-communities a necessity.

@8 - hey, so you disagree with Andrew Sullivan's qualified, tepid support of a book that a friend of his (Charles Murray) wrote. Big deal. And Savage and Sullivan are friends. Again, big deal. If we allowed the transitive property of friendships to define our characters, we'd all be in trouble. Calm the f*ck down.
11
Convenient that spell/grammar check does not flag the exclamation point on Jeb! because it thinks that its the end of a sentence.
12
@11: *it's
13
@11, when a name with a mark of punctuation in it ends a sentence, you don't use extra punctuation. It would look ridiculous to have a period next to an exclamation point that's part of a name or trademark.

As for Jeb!, he is both anti-gay and a hypocrite. Remember, religious discrimination only happens when "Christians" are compelled to follow a law that they feel goes against their religious beliefs.
14
Good call, Dan. I read Trump is making some noise and getting some numbers.
Time to start reminding the young folk to fucking Register , Dan.
Let's get this Party started.
15
States' rights? You mean like slavery, segregation etc.
16
Could I say a word in support of trans rights? The explanation that Dan quotes does not include trans men and women, and I believe that is a gap that should be addressed. LGB somehow doesn't seem complete without the T and Q (et al.).
17
@16: We really only need G and T. Gay includes male and female homosexuality, bisexuals only need rights when they are in gay relationships, and Q and any others are essentially redundant.
18
C'mon, people. It is really a pretty simple issue. We must stand firm against encroaching federal power, therefore any anti-discrimination measures should be decided at the state level. Also, because of homosexuals, we need to pass a constitutional amendment to protect marriage at the federal level.

Lance @1, four words: Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs. If it is my belief, I can do whatever I want, or you are oppressing me by abridging my 1st amendment rights. You beast.
19
Ophian, something like that has got to be decided on a Federal Level, than be bloody done with it.
It's like Groundhog Day watching the politics in the US. See-Saw See-Saw.
After the marriage victory, bound to be a backlash, as they huff and puff. Just got to stay vigilant and ride it out.
20
Employment discrimination happens, no doubt about it. But it's exceedingly rare that it happens in a manner that can be substantiated by evidence in a court of law. (Most employers are not dumb enough to say, e.g., "I'm not going to hire you because you're black," and even if they did they certainly don't put it down in an authenticated writing.) As a result, the theory and the practice of how anti-discrimination laws operate is worlds apart. In practice, they do more mischief than good.

Having actually read many of the federal anti-discrimination cases, the following scenario is depressingly common: "This guy showed up late/ drunk every day, was continually in the red, hired unqualified subordinates based on nepotism, and exposed us to liability with several violations of the applicable regulations, BUT insists he was fired because he was [insert protected class]. No word on how he got hired in the first place if we're just out to get [protected class]." Oftentimes the protected class is "over the age of 41."

And the EEOC brings these cases itself! This isn't a private party who found a lawyer willing to do anything for a buck. This is the federal government choosing to spend taxpayer money bringing ridiculous cases like this. I suspect it's one of those "We have to spend all of our budget, or else we won't get as much money next year" things.

So yeah, I'm not a huge fan of anti-discrimination laws. They seem great in principle, but in practice they rarely do any good.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.