asbestosman wrote:JAK wrote:I think “business” (men or women) can and do select employees and do discriminate. However, they generally don’t state either to the potential employee or to anyone why they discriminated against an individual.
Would you not agree that this is the case?
Yes. I think a lo of the discrimination in employment is simply a gut feel of personality although this may be well-hidden when there are threats of lawsuits over discrimination.
Interesting question. What’s a bigot?
bigot
Taken at the first statement here:
“A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind.
I'm tolerant of some opinions and lifestyles which differ from my own, but some I will never tolerate. I will never tolerate child molestation. Period. I don't caer what Nambla or whatver thinks. Does that make me a bigot? Perhaps not.
While I don't approve of adulterers, I don't go out of my way to avoid them at a grocery store unless that person was directly responsible for some pain to a close friend or family in which case I'd avoid them to avoid unpleasant speech / actions in public. Does that make me a bigot? I don't think so.
Am I a bigot? Maybe. I'm not condemning proposition 8. For some that means I'm a bigot.
Nicely written, asbestosman! This is going to appear FAR from where you wrote response. It’s the form format beyond any control of ours.
While the following observation may not be reflected in any dictionary definition of “bigot,” I respond:
You are
not a bigot for reflecting an
intolerance with which a significant majority of people would agree in your example of condemnation of “child molestation.” Not only are you with the majority, you are with the law of the majority as you are intolerant of child molestation.
Further, it’s not a “bigot” in my view to deliberate avoid a contact with a person in a store when you can purposefully avoid a contact.
Even with Proposition 8, to take a position does not necessarily make you a bigot. You are not and do not represent eHarmony. However “business” of almost any kind
caters to some special interest or group. It’s inevitable. Historically, there have been “groups” which are made up of one sex. The Boy Scouts have been historically made up of BOYS. There have been challenges to that in which girls or parents of girls attempted to qualify them for “The Boy Scouts.” But we have
The Girl Scouts. And that group is made up of GIRLS. By definition, these groups
discriminate against the opposite sex. I don’t think that makes them bigots, UNLESS, “The “Boy Scouts” protest and object
to the existence of “The Girl Scouts. At the point they do (or visa-versa), they become
intolerant.
We have in the US all boys’ colleges and all girls’ colleges. Girls are not permitted to enroll in an all boys’ school. It’s discrimination but not bigotry.
When you say “For some that means I’m a bigot,” it’s a well qualified statement in your use of the words “for some.” Excellent analysis!
People initiate
lawsuits often for frivolous reasons. Or, they do it thinking they must might collect money or status. Any “service group” necessarily has to establish policies in line with law. I’m not talking about drug dealers who operate outside the law and with as much invisibility as they can manage FROM the law. I don’t think that “business” (a broad term) is “forced” to do more than the law requires. At the same time, it cannot do less than the law requires. Obviously, a car dealership cannot be “forced” to sell watermelons. That’s not their “business.”
Clearly, some lawsuits are frivolous. Yet, some such suits are successful. If people want to pay a lawyer to accomplish an objective, and if the lawyer wants to take on the case, it can happen. But most such frivolous lawsuits are dismissed.
CA has a history of evolution on same-sex relationships and how the law should address them. At one time, interracial marriage was illegal in most states in the US. After the abolition of slavery, interracial marriage was generally prohibited by law. Today, not only do we have interracial marriage, we have marriage between Hispanics and Caucasians, African-American and Hispanics, and many more.
I mention this because mores are changing continuously. That now applies to the whole issue of same-sex marriage. Like interracial unions (first illegal then legal then accepted), I suspect that over time, same-sex union is likely to be recognized in more states. But it begins with one or a few. Change of mores and attitudes is a process which requires
time.
The first steps which recognize some legal acknowledgment of same-sex relationship are not the last steps. There are many Americans today who oppose interracial marriage even though such marriage is legal.
There is a leading edge of a
curve in a direction and a trailing edge of that
curve.
This is not a digression: When Social Security was first advocated,
it was opposed by conservatives. Many of those same conservatives who opposed it are now recipients of Social Security payments. The example is in support of the slow process of
change of attitude regarding virtually any new idea or argued policy. Regardless of the result of Proposition 8, I expect that homosexuals who are committed to achieving a legal status will continue to fight for that legal status.