Highest Court in Brazil Rules Homophobia a Crime

[Necroghastia]

TIL: Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.

I'm sure you also have sources to back up the rest of your assertions too.

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

I'm sincerely trying to figure out what this talk of assassination has to do with things like discriminating hiring practices or, y'know, anything that the law/ruling actually deals with. Or how an assassination also being a hate crime somehow means it's valued more (whatever that means).

Also still waiting on those sources for the rest of your assertions in your first post.

[The Free Joy State]

I am not sure I follow this logic.

Then you do not do justice but partial judgements favouring some collectives over another. The msot important thing on justice is an even hand

And preventing discrimination due to homophobia (and racism and ableism and so on) is giving justice a chance at an even hand. By guaranteeing that certain traits are overlooked, it ensures everyone has a chance at blind justice.

Employers can refuse to hire anyone based on the candidate projecting badly interview, or a lack of experience, or being fired from their last job under undesirable circumstances (theft or persistent absenteeism, for example), or failing a test that employment is subject to. They can't refuse on basis of sex, sexuality, race, potential maternity, or disability.

Restaurants can refuse to serve anyone who isn't wearing long sleeves and shoes. They cannot refuse to serve someone because they are LGBT+, African American or Asian, or using a pair of crutches.

As for the OP, good for the court in Brazil.

[North German Realm]

Except the problem is, homophobes will continue to refuse to hire based on sexuality. Sexists will continue to refuse to hire based on sex. Racists will continue to refuse to hire based on race. You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse to hire anyone period", because that would be stupid, so you have to limit the "reasons" one can refuse to hire someone. "He's not competent enough" is fine. "He's gay and I don't like gays", however, is discrimination.
Similarly, see "refuse service". You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse service to anyone"... for the same reason. But if you don't put the limits, if you don't bring up anti-discrimination laws, people will get discriminated. The Law has a duty to protect people from that.

THeese laws will not change the facts neither an employers whom does not want to contract someone will not do instead of saying ''he is homosexual'' he will say'' i do not like their curriculum i will search better staff''

In which case the person can take them to court if they believe "he wasn't being honest and was just discriminating", while in the former (where there is no law), the victimized party couldn't do that. The Law protects the citizens' right not to be discriminated against as well as it can. It is limited, because assholes always manage to escape to a certain degree, but without that protection, there every asshole can do what it wants.

[The Free Joy State]

THeese laws will not change the facts neither an employers whom does not want to contract someone will not do instead of saying ''he is homosexual'' he will say'' i do not like their curriculum i will search better staff''

In which case the person can take them to court if they believe "he wasn't being honest and was just discriminating", while in the former (where there is no law), the victimized party couldn't do that.

^ This, too.

Where there are protections against discrimination, there are also procedures to protect those who have been wronged.

[Blueflarst]

THeese laws will not change the facts neither an employers whom does not want to contract someone will not do instead of saying ''he is homosexual'' he will say'' i do not like their curriculum i will search better staff''

In which case the person can take them to court if they believe "he wasn't being honest and was just discriminating", while in the former (where there is no law), the victimized party couldn't do that. The Law protects the citizens' right not to be discriminated against as well as it can. It is limited, because assholes always manage to escape to a certain degree, but without that protection, there every asshole can do what it wants.

These law can be used in the oppossite wayaswell an inmigrant from other country can go to the justice saying they were discriminated by their nationality in case they were not and win forcing the oemployer to contrac them.
Ther are asholes on both sides

[The Free Joy State]

In which case the person can take them to court if they believe "he wasn't being honest and was just discriminating", while in the former (where there is no law), the victimized party couldn't do that. The Law protects the citizens' right not to be discriminated against as well as it can. It is limited, because assholes always manage to escape to a certain degree, but without that protection, there every asshole can do what it wants.

These law can be used in the oppossite wayaswell an inmigrant from other country can go to the justice saying they were discriminated by their nationality in case they were not and win forcing the oemployer to contrac them.
Ther are asholes on both sides

Firstly, discrimination has to be proven to a reasonable standard of evidence. And those who claim they were discriminated against usually sue for lost earnings, not a job (who would want to work for a bigot who had already refused to hire them -- their work-life would be miserable).

I believe, with regards to employment, the person who claims they did not discriminate against the plaintiff would have to provide evidence of why they did not hire the person, and the plaintiff could bring evidence that proved their suitability for the job. The judge would rule one way or the other, and does not always side for the plaintiff.

And it is important that those protections are in place, not only so that there is recourse for those who are discriminated against (in employment and housing and commerce), but also so that people who have bigoted views would be discouraged from acting on them by the knowledge there is a penalty.

Such laws serve a dual purpose.

[Blueflarst]

These law can be used in the oppossite wayaswell an inmigrant from other country can go to the justice saying they were discriminated by their nationality in case they were not and win forcing the oemployer to contrac them.
Ther are asholes on both sides

Firstly, discrimination has to be proven to a reasonable standard of evidence. And those who claim they were discriminated against usually sue for lost earnings, not a job (who would want to work for a bigot who had already refused to hire them -- their work-life would be miserable).

I believe the person who claims they were not discriminating against the plaintiff would have to provide evidence of why they did not hire the person, and the plaintiff could bring evidence that proved their suitability (such as, for employment). The judge would rule one way or the other, and does not always side for the plaintiff.

And it is important that those protections are in place, not only so that there is recourse for those who are discriminated against (in employment and housing and commerce), but also so that people who have bigoted views would be discouraged from acting on them by the knowledge there is a penalty.

Such laws serve a dual purpose.

Aparently many people without jub would prefer to work with a bigot boss than to root on a street
In this type of laws the cunning people mostly wins without ensuring justice.
A forger with very intelligent arguments and fake evidence can win a trial to win a job.

[The Free Joy State]

Firstly, discrimination has to be proven to a reasonable standard of evidence. And those who claim they were discriminated against usually sue for lost earnings, not a job (who would want to work for a bigot who had already refused to hire them -- their work-life would be miserable).

I believe the person who claims they were not discriminating against the plaintiff would have to provide evidence of why they did not hire the person, and the plaintiff could bring evidence that proved their suitability (such as, for employment). The judge would rule one way or the other, and does not always side for the plaintiff.

And it is important that those protections are in place, not only so that there is recourse for those who are discriminated against (in employment and housing and commerce), but also so that people who have bigoted views would be discouraged from acting on them by the knowledge there is a penalty.

Such laws serve a dual purpose.

Aparently many people without jub would prefer to work with a bigot boss than to root on a street

Again, people generally sue for lost wages, not the job they were not hired for.

If you have evidence otherwise... source?

In this type of laws the cunning people mostly wins without ensuring justice.
A forger with very intelligent arguments and fake evidence can win a trial to win a job.

Source?

[Blueflarst]

Aparently many people without jub would prefer to work with a bigot boss than to root on a street

Again, people generally sue for lost wages, not the job they were not hired for.

If you have evidence otherwise... source?

In this type of laws the cunning people mostly wins without ensuring justice.
A forger with very intelligent arguments and fake evidence can win a trial to win a job.

Source?

The source is my personal experience as spanish
I heard cases from people coming of latin america to work. And accusing employers of racism without real racism inside

[Blueflarst]

Another case the mother of one romanian friend accused the teachers of racism cause they did not pass her son to scare the teachers and winning a grade for her son

I stayed on the same school four years and never saw racism againist anyone less againist him

[The Free Joy State]

Again, people generally sue for lost wages, not the job they were not hired for.

If you have evidence otherwise... source?

Source?

The source is my personal experience as spanish
I heard cases from people coming of latin america to work. And accusing employers of racism without real racism inside

Anecdote is not the single form of data.

One personal experience does not disprove the necessity of anti-discrimination laws for millions of honest, law-abiding people who just want a level playing field, from which to live their lives and earn a living.

Anti-discrimination laws: not allowing employers, those renting properties or those running restaurants to see protected characteristics like sexuality, sex, ethnicity and disability status is the best way to level that playing field.

EDIT: And this thread is about discrimination protection being expanded to LGBT+ people in Brazil, not racism.

[Vassenor]

The plural of anecdote is not data. Just sayin'.

[Blueflarst]

The source is my personal experience as spanish
I heard cases from people coming of latin america to work. And accusing employers of racism without real racism inside

Anecdote is not the single form of data.

One personal experience does not disprove the necessity of anti-discrimination laws for millions of honest, law-abiding people who just want a level playing field, from which to live their lives and earn a living.

Anti-discrimination laws -- not allowing employers, those renting properties or those running restaurants -- to see personal characteristics like sexuality, sex, ethnicity and disability status is the best way to level that playing field.

Which is your source to guarantee the majority of people is honest? There is no such stadistic
A person can abide the law all the life apparently without doing really. A person can abide the law and suffer afake condemn with jail.
A person can not abide the law and win a trial with legal innnocence.
There are lots of types of people and doing this type of laws in my opinion only encourages becoming cunning

[The Free Joy State]

Anecdote is not the single form of data.

One personal experience does not disprove the necessity of anti-discrimination laws for millions of honest, law-abiding people who just want a level playing field, from which to live their lives and earn a living.

Anti-discrimination laws -- not allowing employers, those renting properties or those running restaurants -- to see personal characteristics like sexuality, sex, ethnicity and disability status is the best way to level that playing field.

Which is your source to guarantee the majority of people is honest? There is no such stadistic

Actually, there is.

Most people are honest.

In a study, conducted over the telephone, 658 people were asked to tell the researchers whether a coin landed heads or tails, offering a cash incentive if it landed on tails. Only 44.4% claimed it did, suggesting that the majority of people are honest.

A person can abide the law all the life apparently without doing really. A person can abide the law and suffer afake condemn with jail.

A person can not abide the law and win a trial with legal innnocence.

I'm really not sure what this is supposed to mean...

There are lots of types of people and doing this type of laws in my opinion only encourages becoming cunning

Source?

A study would be nice.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

In our system, that's how it works, yes. it's sort of a bedrock legal principle in our country.

Citing a common law practice would be relevant if Brazil’s legal system operated on common law, however it doesn’t and instead is a civil law system.

Maybe Brazil's system is different. Perhaps judges there have legislative authority? I don't know.

Just as you have a pet peeve over people misusing the word fascism I have a pet peeve with the misuse of the word legislation when it comes to the judiciary. Courts (unless actually specified by the law) literally don’t legislate and rulings like these are not a legislative act. The judges aren’t sitting down and writing down a piece of legislation and passing it like a legislative body.

Also, there’s this regarding Brazil’s legal system:

Legislative entities are the main source of statutes, although in certain matters judiciary and executive bodies may enact legal norms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Law

[Galloism]

In our system, that's how it works, yes. it's sort of a bedrock legal principle in our country.

Citing a common law practice would be relevant if Brazil’s legal system operated on common law, however it doesn’t and instead is a civil law system.

Hence why, to Des Bal and I, this seems so backwards. We live in common law countries.

Contextually, this is clearly what I was referring to if one were to read the context of the conversation.

Maybe Brazil's system is different. Perhaps judges there have legislative authority? I don't know.

Just as you have a pet peeve over people misusing the word fascism I have a pet peeve with the misuse of the word legislation when it comes to the judiciary. Courts (unless actually specified by the law) literally don’t legislate and rulings like these are not a legislative act. The judges aren’t sitting down and writing down a piece of legislation and passing it like a legislative body.

Also, there’s this regarding Brazil’s legal system:

Legislative entities are the main source of statutes, although in certain matters judiciary and executive bodies may enact legal norms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Law

I mean, this does literally mean they're effectively legislating from the bench as, per the information linked, no civil law actually exists for the court to enforce here.

But whereas we (generally) take that as anathema, that doesn't mean Brazil does the same.

Also, transmitting decisions vía YouTube is pretty boss.

[Ors Might]

''Laws that make it so you can't fire people simply because they're gay, black, etc. are the real discrimination.''
If you do a law saying an specific fact like these motives you mean other motives different from your ones are less bad than the motives oof your lawcode. You are doing a huge mistake valuing more an assasination for discrimination over other assasinations. All assasinations are [u]equaly bad[/u] and the laws must penalize the actions not the causes

Except the problem is, homophobes will continue to refuse to hire based on sexuality. Sexists will continue to refuse to hire based on sex. Racists will continue to refuse to hire based on race. You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse to hire anyone period", because that would be stupid, so you have to limit the "reasons" one can refuse to hire someone. "He's not competent enough" is fine. "He's gay and I don't like gays", however, is discrimination.
Similarly, see "refuse service". You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse service to anyone"... for the same reason. But if you don't put the limits, if you don't bring up anti-discrimination laws, people will get discriminated. The Law has a duty to protect people from that.

For clarification, are you saying that the law has a duty to protect people from discrimination or from didcrimination coming from employers and housing providers?

[North German Realm]

Except the problem is, homophobes will continue to refuse to hire based on sexuality. Sexists will continue to refuse to hire based on sex. Racists will continue to refuse to hire based on race. You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse to hire anyone period", because that would be stupid, so you have to limit the "reasons" one can refuse to hire someone. "He's not competent enough" is fine. "He's gay and I don't like gays", however, is discrimination.
Similarly, see "refuse service". You can't put a blanket "You can't refuse service to anyone"... for the same reason. But if you don't put the limits, if you don't bring up anti-discrimination laws, people will get discriminated. The Law has a duty to protect people from that.

For clarification, are you saying that the law has a duty to protect people from discrimination or from didcrimination coming from employers and housing providers?

From discrimination in general, the employers and service providers would be an example.

[Ors Might]

For clarification, are you saying that the law has a duty to protect people from discrimination or from didcrimination coming from employers and housing providers?

From discrimination in general, the employers and service providers would be an example.

That’s not feasible, though. Everybody discriminates to some extent. When people say they’re against discrimination, they’re saying that they’re opposed to discriminating against certain classes.

Ignoring that, though, you can’t really expect people to be overly concerned with the fact one group of people doesn’t particularly like another, to a point.

[North German Realm]

From discrimination in general, the employers and service providers would be an example.

That’s not feasible, though. Everybody discriminates to some extent. When people say they’re against discrimination, they’re saying that they’re opposed to discriminating against certain classes.

Ignoring that, though, you can’t really expect people to be overly concerned with the fact one group of people doesn’t particularly like another, to a point.

I can't expect people, nor the law, to be against the fact groups of people don't like each other. I can, and should, expect The Law, if not the people, to care when that dislike results in the latter group not getting full access to rights and privileges that it is owed, and I can and should expect the law to do something about it.
I'm not going to expect the law to, for example, make "Disliking Gays" illegal. I'd love to, but it's generally in the realm of "really impossible". I am, however, goign to expect the Law to do something so that dislike doesn't end up impairing the gays. I admit, my post may have been incomplete. Discrimination, if it results in the discriminated party being impaired in society (not getting service, not getting hired, et. al.), is something the Law has a duty to protect people from.