Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Byzconia]

Where is this alleged freedom of association?

Where are any rights? They exist in people's minds.

If that's the argument you're gonna use, then I can easily argue that no one should have rights and the state can use you as it pleases.

[Telconi]

Where are any rights? They exist in people's minds.

If that's the argument you're gonna use, then I can easily argue that no one should have rights and the state can use you as it pleases.

You could argue that. Quite easily.

[Ors Might]

It’s less of a point and more of a cynical quip, really. Irrational hatred generally isn’t counter towards society functioning, depending on whom it’s directed at. A sad truth but a truth nonetheless.

Not counter towards society functioning, but counter to it functioning well. I don't think anyone would argue that Nazi Germany functioned (herr herr Godwin's Law), but I doubt anyone but Neo-Nazis would try to argue that it was a society anyone would want to live in.

Could you explain what’s unclear about it? I’m genuinely confused about your confusion here.

Specifically, your word choice. You argued that it's not a right, but then said the government regulates discrimination because it infringes on people's rights? At least, that's how I read it. I recognize that could be a misinterpretation, hence my confusion.

As for the rest, the “right” to not be discriminated is, at best, a legal right best applied to the federal and state governments solely. Otherwise it infringes upon the natural rights others. That is my objection to it.

I've already stated my feelings on natural vs. legal rights.

In which case, I can see preventing discrimination to be a possibly valid decision. I believe I’ve previously brought up in which scenarios that is.

What, specifically, are you referring to here? Sorry, just not sure what exactly this is in response to.

Hobbs and I might have differing ideas on what constitutes natural rights. To me, natural rights are based in one question: What allows an individual to best propagate their continued existence in a stateless society? To that end, killing another human being can situationally aid in that endeavor but it isn’t a right in and of itself. Allowing for the right to self defense is rooted in the right to exist.

But you can argue that it's more than situational. Killing off all of the males in your area, and enslaving all the females, would definitely allow individual propagation--the former are competition for resources and mates, the latter are the means to create offspring.[/quote]
Ah, now I understand. I mean that the government being biased towards one or multiple groups, postively or negatively, will hamper it’s ability to protect the rights of everyone. I didn’t mean ti imply not being discriminated against is a right, just that the government being discrimatiry for arbitrary reasons is counter productive towards it’s ideal purpose. I apologize for wording it poorly.

Indeed you have. I’m still not entirely sure why you feel the way you do.

I don’t consider reproduction to be essential to one’s individual existence. Granted, it could prove beneficial for emotional stability for some but it isn’t life threatening otherwise. Reproduction is more of a right to association and bodily autonomy sort of thing anyway.

[Byzconia]

If that's the argument you're gonna use, then I can easily argue that no one should have rights and the state can use you as it pleases.

You could argue that. Quite easily.

Then why shouldn't I? Your sig would seem to indicate you're against Fascism, but why? If rights are are simply arbitrary, why not be a fascist? It's the most logical conclusion.

[Telconi]

You could argue that. Quite easily.

Then why shouldn't I? Your sig would seem to indicate you're against Fascism, but why? If rights are are simply arbitrary, why not be a fascist? It's the most logical conclusion.

That's up to you, cant decide your beliefs for you. Because I find the concept of fascism to be repulsive. And doing repulsive things is very much illogical.

[Byzconia]

Ah, now I understand. I mean that the government being biased towards one or multiple groups, postively or negatively, will hamper it’s ability to protect the rights of everyone. I didn’t mean ti imply not being discriminated against is a right, just that the government being discrimatiry for arbitrary reasons is counter productive towards it’s ideal purpose. I apologize for wording it poorly.

Now I understand. Thanks for your patience and clarification. However, as to being "positively biased" I'd argue that it's absolutely necessary, at least to an extant. The world we live in is not perfect, people do not inherently rise or fall based on merit. Regulations and laws need to be in place to ensure equality of opportunity. In practice, this will look like the government being "biased" for a specific group, but in reality it's simply correcting a systemic error.

Indeed you have. I’m still not entirely sure why you feel the way you do.

That natural rights aren't superior to legal rights? I don't see any reason why they should be.

I don’t consider reproduction to be essential to one’s individual existence. Granted, it could prove beneficial for emotional stability for some but it isn’t life threatening otherwise. Reproduction is more of a right to association and bodily autonomy sort of thing anyway.

That's a fair point. One problem I'll point out, however, is the assumption that existence itself is the basis for rights. While I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment, and I understand you're using an axiom, it could also be argued that this doesn't make sense, as life has no inherent value. Therefore, a Hobbesian state of nature would actually be the most preferential for the individual--complete and total freedom to do whatever we please.

[Byzconia]

That's up to you, cant decide your beliefs for you.

I was more referring to your beliefs. You've already said you don't think rights actually exist, so why not become a fascist? I'm trying to understand your reasoning.

Because I find the concept of fascism to be repulsive. And doing repulsive things is very much illogical.

How so?

[Kowani]

You could argue that. Quite easily.

Then why shouldn't I? Your sig would seem to indicate you're against Fascism, but why? If rights are are simply arbitrary, why not be a fascist? It's the most logical conclusion.

Rights are arbitrary tho.

[Byzconia]

Then why shouldn't I? Your sig would seem to indicate you're against Fascism, but why? If rights are are simply arbitrary, why not be a fascist? It's the most logical conclusion.

Rights are arbitrary tho.

And you're free to think that. My question is, though, if you do believe that, then why not be a fascist? What rational reason is there to reject a belief system that explicitly states that people do not have rights?

EDIT: This isn't a "gotcha" question, I'm legitimately curious to hear the reasoning behind this.

[Kowani]

Rights are arbitrary tho.

And you're free to think that. My question is, though, if you do believe that, then why not be a fascist? What rational reason is there to reject a belief system that explicitly states that people do not have rights?

EDIT: This isn't a "gotcha" question, I'm legitimately curious to hear the reasoning behind this.

Because Facism makes things worse for the collective overall. Also, slippery slope.

[Telconi]

That's up to you, cant decide your beliefs for you.

I was more referring to your beliefs. You've already said you don't think rights actually exist, so why not become a fascist? I'm trying to understand your reasoning.

Because I find the concept of fascism to be repulsive. And doing repulsive things is very much illogical.

How so?

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they were subjective. Constructs of our beliefs.

How do what?

[Byzconia]

And you're free to think that. My question is, though, if you do believe that, then why not be a fascist? What rational reason is there to reject a belief system that explicitly states that people do not have rights?

EDIT: This isn't a "gotcha" question, I'm legitimately curious to hear the reasoning behind this.

Because Facism makes things worse for the collective overall.

How so?

Also, slippery slope.

[/quote]

No. It'd be a slippery slope to say, "Believing that rights are arbitrary inherently leads to fascism." What I said was, "If you believe that rights are arbitrary, why not be a fascist?" The former is a fallacy, the latter is a perfectly logical question. Here, I'll lay it out specifically:

Slippery slope
P1: All Fascists believe rights are arbitrary.
P2: Fascists support Fascism.
C: Therefore, believing that rights are arbitrary leads to fascism.

not a slippery slope
P1: You believe rights are arbitrary.
P2: Fascists believe rights are arbitrary.
C: Therefore, why not be a fascist?

That's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

[Byzconia]

I was more referring to your beliefs. You've already said you don't think rights actually exist, so why not become a fascist? I'm trying to understand your reasoning.



How so?

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they were subjective. Constructs of our beliefs.

Sorry, you're right, poor choice of words on my part. I'll fix it: You've already said you think rights are arbitrary, so why not become a fascist? Specifically, why care about rights if they're arbitrary? I'm trying to understand your reasoning.

How do what?

How is doing "repulsive things" illogical?

[Telconi]

I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they were subjective. Constructs of our beliefs.

Sorry, you're right, poor choice of words on my part. I'll fix it: You've already said you think rights are arbitrary, so why not become a fascist? Specifically, why care about rights if they're arbitrary? I'm trying to understand your reasoning.

How do what?

How is doing "repulsive things" illogical?

Because I can abide by my beliefs without insisting that my beliefs are cosmic truth.

Because I dislike being repulsed by my own actions.

[Byzconia]

Because I can abide by my beliefs without insisting that my beliefs are cosmic truth.

This has nothing to do with my question.

Because I dislike being repulsed by my own actions.

But why would your actions repulse you?

[Kowani]

How so?

Because Facist economics are terrible, Facism as ideology leads to the snuffing of scientific progress that betters the collective, and checks and balances are an objectively useful thing if one wants a working society.

Also, slippery slope.

No. It'd be a slippery slope to say, "Believing that rights are arbitrary inherently leads to fascism." What I said was, "If you believe that rights are arbitrary, why not be a fascist?" The former is a fallacy, the latter is a perfectly logical question. Here, I'll lay it out specifically:

Slippery slope
P1: All Fascists believe rights are arbitrary.
P2: Fascists support Fascism.
C: Therefore, believing that rights are arbitrary leads to fascism.

not a slippery slope
P1: You believe rights are arbitrary.
P2: Fascists believe rights are arbitrary.
C: Therefore, why not be a fascist?

That's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.[/quote]
I didn’t mean the question was a slippery slope. My answer was worded badly. I mean that Facism itself is a slippery slope, and being black myself, I’m more likely to be attacked by a tyrannical regime.

[Ors Might]

Ah, now I understand. I mean that the government being biased towards one or multiple groups, postively or negatively, will hamper it’s ability to protect the rights of everyone. I didn’t mean ti imply not being discriminated against is a right, just that the government being discrimatiry for arbitrary reasons is counter productive towards it’s ideal purpose. I apologize for wording it poorly.

Now I understand. Thanks for your patience and clarification. However, as to being "positively biased" I'd argue that it's absolutely necessary, at least to an extant. The world we live in is not perfect, people do not inherently rise or fall based on merit. Regulations and laws need to be in place to ensure equality of opportunity. In practice, this will look like the government being "biased" for a specific group, but in reality it's simply correcting a systemic error.

Indeed you have. I’m still not entirely sure why you feel the way you do.

That natural rights aren't superior to legal rights? I don't see any reason why they should be.

I don’t consider reproduction to be essential to one’s individual existence. Granted, it could prove beneficial for emotional stability for some but it isn’t life threatening otherwise. Reproduction is more of a right to association and bodily autonomy sort of thing anyway.

That's a fair point. One problem I'll point out, however, is the assumption that existence itself is the basis for rights. While I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment, and I understand you're using an axiom, it could also be argued that this doesn't make sense, as life has no inherent value. Therefore, a Hobbesian state of nature would actually be the most preferential for the individual--complete and total freedom to do whatever we please.

I’m not sure we’re going to make any ground here. It may be that we’re simoly lioking at this from very different perspectives. I don’t see the government giving those in poverty a hand up as having a bias anymore than I see a teacher giving a struggling student some extra attention as having a bias.

Honestly? Because legal rights in general stand on shaky ground. They’re dependant on present circumstances rather than reasoned debates to remain validated.

You think so? I don’t. Hobbes made the error of ignoring the fact that humans are ultimately social creatures. We need to be around each other and naturally have empathy for our fellow man. Societies couldn’t exist if we weren’t capable of feelings like guilt and responsibility. People don’t want a world where they act on every little impulse. They want one where they aren’t bound by anything beyond their own conscience and agreements.

[Enjuku]

When most people think of job discrimination, I think it's typically a scenario where someone comes in for an interview and the interviewer flat out says "no XXX allowed, DENIED"

In reality, establishing discrimination is much, much harder to do than people think.

Nobody should be denied a job based on attributes you can't change, and that's a pretty basic legal precedent. But applying that to situations where the intent behind denying someone a job or a service can be extremely fuzzy makes things difficult. And honestly, LGBTQ people fall into a shaky legal category where we're not easily defined as a class. We can marry, but that's easy to oversee (if two sexes on a marriage certificate are the same, it's still valid). We can have sex in private (see Lawrence v Texas) but it's already an unlikely situation for someone to monitor your sexual activities in the privacy of your own home.

Meanwhile job applications and interviews are much more hazy and a common avenue to interact with cis hetero people. If you deny someone a position, you don't fill out a form saying which attribute made you say no. You also aren't really required to inform people of the exact reason you said no. The most we can pull a discrimination case out of that situation is based on the situation itself (comments about race/sex/gender, mood of the conversation, if things went south when they found out you had a boyfriend/girlfriend, etc).

And finally, once you get piece together all the messy details of a job hiring situation to find some kind of indicator of intent to discriminate based on that attribute, we reach this case where we don't know if there is any legal ground for protecting discrimination based on who you sleep with (something unrelated to the workplace) and what gender you identify with (which will open the can of worms on trans rights such as how to legally classify trans people if their gender is different from the sex on their birth certificate)

Overall it's a gigantic leap for SCOTUS to take and while I sincerely hope they rule that sex discrimination includes LGBTQ people, I understand the thought process of people who might oppose it. People who don't understand our struggle will very easily side with discriminators because denying a job based on very visible traits like race or sex brings very different thoughts to the cis hetero person's head than denying a job to someone and finding out they were actually gay or trans, something you might not have noticed at first. They're afraid of "gotcha" lawsuits for hurting people they don't understand.

Not to mention that race and sex are not condemned as sinful by default by the majority religion of the United States. Meanwhile we're the equivalent of living hellfire.

Short story short, if the court rules that sex discrimination doesn't cover us, I will understand why. It's not the same fight as the Civil Rights Movement. We're still a very conservative society outside liberal cities and bastions when it comes to LGBTQ people (i.e. people won't even let trans people use the bathroom because they're afraid of getting raped? Heard that troupe before?). And we have a long way to go before we're seen as equals in a society that sees us as outliers.

[San Lumen]

When most people think of job discrimination, I think it's typically a scenario where someone comes in for an interview and the interviewer flat out says "no XXX allowed, DENIED"

In reality, establishing discrimination is much, much harder to do than people think.

Nobody should be denied a job based on attributes you can't change, and that's a pretty basic legal precedent. But applying that to situations where the intent behind denying someone a job or a service can be extremely fuzzy makes things difficult. And honestly, LGBTQ people fall into a shaky legal category where we're not easily defined as a class. We can marry, but that's easy to oversee (if two sexes on a marriage certificate are the same, it's still valid). We can have sex in private (see Lawrence v Texas) but it's already an unlikely situation for someone to monitor your sexual activities in the privacy of your own home.

Meanwhile job applications and interviews are much more hazy and a common avenue to interact with cis hetero people. If you deny someone a position, you don't fill out a form saying which attribute made you say no. You also aren't really required to inform people of the exact reason you said no. The most we can pull a discrimination case out of that situation is based on the situation itself (comments about race/sex/gender, mood of the conversation, if things went south when they found out you had a boyfriend/girlfriend, etc).

And finally, once you get piece together all the messy details of a job hiring situation to find some kind of indicator of intent to discriminate based on that attribute, we reach this case where we don't know if there is any legal ground for protecting discrimination based on who you sleep with (something unrelated to the workplace) and what gender you identify with (which will open the can of worms on trans rights such as how to legally classify trans people if their gender is different from the sex on their birth certificate)

Overall it's a gigantic leap for SCOTUS to take and while I sincerely hope they rule that sex discrimination includes LGBTQ people, I understand the thought process of people who might oppose it. People who don't understand our struggle will very easily side with discriminators because denying a job based on very visible traits like race or sex brings very different thoughts to the cis hetero person's head than denying a job to someone and finding out they were actually gay or trans, something you might not have noticed at first. They're afraid of "gotcha" lawsuits for hurting people they don't understand.

Not to mention that race and sex are not condemned as sinful by default by the majority religion of the United States. Meanwhile we're the equivalent of living hellfire.

Short story short, if the court rules that sex discrimination doesn't cover us, I will understand why. It's not the same fight as the Civil Rights Movement. We're still a very conservative society outside liberal cities and bastions when it comes to LGBTQ people (i.e. people won't even let trans people use the bathroom because they're afraid of getting raped? Heard that troupe before?). And we have a long way to go before we're seen as equals in a society that sees us as outliers.

I agree with almost all of this. Plus no one should be fired because their employer later finds out they are gay or dating someone they dont like.

[Byzconia]

How so?

Because Facist economics are terrible, Facism as ideology leads to the snuffing of scientific progress that betters the collective, and checks and balances are an objectively useful thing if one wants a working society.

No. It'd be a slippery slope to say, "Believing that rights are arbitrary inherently leads to fascism." What I said was, "If you believe that rights are arbitrary, why not be a fascist?" The former is a fallacy, the latter is a perfectly logical question. Here, I'll lay it out specifically:

Slippery slope
P1: All Fascists believe rights are arbitrary.
P2: Fascists support Fascism.
C: Therefore, believing that rights are arbitrary leads to fascism.

not a slippery slope
P1: You believe rights are arbitrary.
P2: Fascists believe rights are arbitrary.
C: Therefore, why not be a fascist?

That's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

I didn’t mean the question was a slippery slope. My answer was worded badly. I mean that Facism itself is a slippery slope, and being black myself, I’m more likely to be attacked by a tyrannical regime.[/quote]

Yeah, seems reasonable to me.

[Byzconia]

I’m not sure we’re going to make any ground here. It may be that we’re simoly lioking at this from very different perspectives. I don’t see the government giving those in poverty a hand up as having a bias anymore than I see a teacher giving a struggling student some extra attention as having a bias.

Neither do I? My point was just that such actions would certainly look like bias from someone on the outside looking in.

Honestly? Because legal rights in general stand on shaky ground. They’re dependant on present circumstances rather than reasoned debates to remain validated.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. Regardless, I still don't see why fluidity should make legal rights less important than natural rights.

You think so? I don’t. Hobbes made the error of ignoring the fact that humans are ultimately social creatures.

Like I said, I don't think Hobbes's theory tells the whole story, but he still has a good point. Humans are indeed social animals, but that still hasn't stopped us from raping and slaughtering each other for millenia.

We need to be around each other and naturally have empathy for our fellow man. Societies couldn’t exist if we weren’t capable of feelings like guilt and responsibility.

I agree with you to an extent, but I think you're going too far in the opposite direction from Hobbes. Humans are both kind and cruel, but to what extant we are each is largely determined by the environment we grow up in.

People don’t want a world where they act on every little impulse. They want one where they aren’t bound by anything beyond their own conscience and agreements.

Hence the existence of the social contract.

[The Emerald Legion]

From yourself. It's a right. It's one of the fundamental things that you must have to be considered not a slave. Noone grants you your rights.

Though Galloism's answer is how those rights are protected.

And from where does your right to liberty come from? Just saying “it’s a right” doesn’t actually make it one, because at that point, it’s naught more than your opinion.

From the fact that if you don't have it, you are a slave. It's certainly possible to be a slave, if that's what you're asking. It happens all the time, but it's not a desirable position, and people will happily kill to escape it.

It's a right because rights are freedoms you need to have to be considered 'Free'

A slave can bear arms, if his task is to kill his master's enemies. But he can't speak his mind, or travel where he will. Or gather with the other slaves if his master forbids it. A slave may be granted some of their rights, but never all.

Once someone has all their rights they're free.

It's a right because rights are the fundemental difference between free people and slaves. That's literally it. There is no god handing them out. No one gives them to you. They are simply the metric by which freedom can be judged.

[ImperialRussia]

Pretty much trash if it doesn’t benefit society and creates more problems in my nation

[Ostroeuropa]

Given the court precedent on gay marriage being based on gender discrimination protections, this seems pretty solid.

[Ors Might]

Given the court precedent on gay marriage being based on gender discrimination protections, this seems pretty solid.

That line of reasoning always seemed off to me. Like I’m far from upset at gay marriage being legal but the logic that it being illegal is gender discrimination feels too shaky for comfort.