Sexuality, gender, age and all of the other factors covered don't matter in the workplace,
Sure it does! Would you higher a geriatric lesbian to work in a bar as a stripper? In general age is a big factor in what you can do work wise and I'm saying this as an old fart that has seen his better days but still needs to work.
so damn right they should be protected from discrimination and dickwads who use their freedom of speech to act like dickwads.
Your statement here is complete non sense. The right to freedom of speech is why these people are free to pursue their goals as it is. That is a very good thing as is the right to vocally object. I wonder if you will be so accepting when child molsters start demanding their rights.
In the end a society without standards of behavior can not last long. Eventually everybody will have their own personal axe to grind and chaos will result.
In what way does that ordinance reduce the rights of any citizens or grant additional rights to the protected minorities?
By definition if you are a protected minority you have additional rights that mainstream people don't have. This is the big problem with these ordinances. It creates a class of people that effectively can discriminate against the majority.
Now the question is is this always a bad thing. In extreme cases no, especially if there has been a massive social injustice in the past. Slavery and discrimination against people from Africa is a good example. Gay people simply aren't in that category and don't need special rights.
Sexuality, gender, age and all of the other factors covered don't matter in the workplace,
Sure it does! Would you higher a geriatric lesbian to work in a bar as a stripper? In general age is a big factor in what you can do work wise and I'm saying this as an old fart that has seen his better days but still needs to work.
Quote:
so damn right they should be protected from discrimination and dickwads who use their freedom of speech to act like dickwads.
Your statement here is complete non sense. The right to freedom of speech is why these people are free to pursue their goals as it is. That is a very good thing as is the right to vocally object. I wonder if you will be so accepting when child molsters start demanding their rights.
In the end a society without standards of behavior can not last long. Eventually everybody will have their own personal axe to grind and chaos will result.
Why do these "freedom of speech" rants always degenerate into such stupid, untenable arguments as you make here? So you equate others who break no laws, but simply don't share your values or are somehow different, with criminals, such as child molesters, and imply that there should be equivalency in their treatment? I can only conclude that the dividing line that the law provides between legal and illegal is irrelevant or invisible to you.
By definition if you are a protected minority you have additional rights that mainstream people don't have. This is the big problem with these ordinances. It creates a class of people that effectively can discriminate against the majority.
Now the question is is this always a bad thing. In extreme cases no, especially if there has been a massive social injustice in the past. Slavery and discrimination against people from Africa is a good example. Gay people simply aren't in that category and don't need special rights.
So? This simply isn't the place for social discussions not related to syntax.
Says who? If I look at a whois record for appleinsider.com, is your name going to appear there as the registrant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Since much of what they are asking for here is already protected then why even bother with this ordinance? It will do nothing constructive and just increase the discord with minority groups.
Untrue. This law addresses a many types of discrimination, including these facing the LGBT citizens:
Texas does not prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not have a law that addresses harassment and/or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not have a law that addresses discrimination against students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas has neither a ban on insurance exclusions for transgender healthcare nor does it provide transgender-inclusive health benefits to Texas employees.
Without this law, a person in Houston could be paid less, passed over for promotions, or even fired simply for being a member of the LGBT community. They could be turned down for an apartment, condo, or hotel rental. Without this law, a company that discriminates against LGBT employees and/or applicants could get contracts with the City of Houston.
So please stop trying to spread falsehoods about this law.
So? This simply isn't the place for social discussions not related to syntax.
Says who? If I look at a whois record for appleinsider.com, is your name going to appear there as the registrant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Since much of what they are asking for here is already protected then why even bother with this ordinance? It will do nothing constructive and just increase the discord with minority groups.
Untrue. This law addresses a many types of discrimination, including these facing the LGBT citizens:
Texas does not prohibit housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not have a law that addresses harassment and/or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas does not have a law that addresses discrimination against students based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Texas has neither a ban on insurance exclusions for transgender healthcare nor does it provide transgender-inclusive health benefits to Texas employees.
Without this law, a person in Houston could be paid less, passed over for promotions, or even fired simply for being a member of the LGBT community. They could be turned down for an apartment, condo, or hotel rental. Without this law, a company that discriminates against LGBT employees and/or applicants could get contracts with the City of Houston.
So please stop trying to spread falsehoods about this law.
Please stop trying to derail this thread with fact-based arguments. It's highly offensive to some of the older residents.
The Following False Statement Was Originally Posted by (grand?) wizard69
By definition if you are a protected minority you have additional rights that mainstream people don't have. This is the big problem with these ordinances. It creates a class of people that effectively can discriminate against the majority.
The ordinance reads: “Houston seeks to provide an environment that is free of any type of discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy.”
That means you cant be fired, denied employment, denied housing, or denied access to public accommodations for being straight, or white, or male, or Christian, or U.S. born, or cisgendered, or not pregnant. There's no "class of people" being given different rights than the majority and the majority is not excluded from the protections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Gay people simply aren't in that category and don't need special rights.
This is a prohibition against discrimination. It does not grant "special rights" to any group.
Wonder what Steve Jobs would say about Tim using his Apple platform to focus on social issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Jobs would be ticked. He tried very hard to keep Apple neutral in such matters and allow it be what it simply is: a producer of the best products in the world.
Intellectually dishonest posters like you can try to distort history all you want, but anyone looking at the facts, and what Steve has said and done, knows that your statements are complete horse-shit. Anyone who thinks SJ would be "ticked" wasn't paying attention at all to the guy during his time.
Also, I'd appreciate a hell of a lot more focus from Tim on Apple products, since it looks like more than just a few of us have been disappointed or surprised by recent decisions or product releases that have not met or exceeded expectations.
Using Apple as a platform for social and political causes near and dear to Tim are shifting too much attention from the company. It would be fantastic if someone would go apeshit over the accumulating pile of details that are going unattended, buckle down and take care of business. Get the small stuff nailed down first before releasing things to the public, please Tim!
I'd summarize that article as a blatant attempt at obfuscation that, as usual, disingenuously confuses freedom to practice religion as enshrined in the Constitution with freedom to discriminate against others in non-personal (i.e. business etc.) contexts. He adds the additional slant of pontificating on just vs. unjust discrimination, apparently purely to attempt to lessen the negative connotations of the word in all uses, rather than if that were in any way an aspect of the issue that is relevant. Frankly it's an insult to intelligent readers, but then I doubt it's aimed at any such audience.
Using Apple as a platform for social and political causes near and dear to Tim are shifting too much attention from the company.
The board must think that the return he is making, minus a certain amount he is sacrificing for green and social issues (e.g. buying more expensive power because it is green, or paying higher wages to workers than is strictly necessary), is still more than another CEO would generate.
I'd summarize that article as a blatant attempt at obfuscation that, as usual, disingenuously confuses freedom to practice religion as enshrined in the Constitution with freedom to discriminate against others in non-personal (i.e. business etc.) contexts. He adds the additional slant of pontificating on just vs. unjust discrimination, apparently purely to attempt to lessen the negative connotations of the word in all uses, rather than if that were in any way an aspect of the issue that is relevant. Frankly it's an insult to intelligent readers, but then I doubt it's aimed at any such audience.
Frankly, I think government oversteps when it gets involved in non-governmental cases of discrimination. Businesses and individuals which are discriminatory would simply go away because of public pressure. There need not be laws against such foolish behavior. Smart people accept the differences in others and well run businesses hire based on the needs of the business and the skills of the worker.
I'd summarize that article as a blatant attempt at obfuscation that, as usual, disingenuously confuses freedom to practice religion as enshrined in the Constitution with freedom to discriminate against others in non-personal (i.e. business etc.) contexts. He adds the additional slant of pontificating on just vs. unjust discrimination, apparently purely to attempt to lessen the negative connotations of the word in all uses, rather than if that were in any way an aspect of the issue that is relevant. Frankly it's an insult to intelligent readers, but then I doubt it's aimed at any such audience.
Frankly, I think government oversteps when it gets involved in non-governmental cases of discrimination. Businesses and individuals which are discriminatory would simply go away because of public pressure. There need not be laws against such foolish behavior. Smart people accept the differences in others and well run businesses hire based on the needs of the business and the skills of the worker.
Unfortunately that assumes rational behavior will prevail, which it demonstrably doesn't. It also assumes that individual instances of such discrimination will tend to be isolated, and thus hurt the discriminator more that the discriminated, which history also shows not to be the case. Minorities tend to get picked on, whether out of fear, religious intolerance or any other tribe-type mindset.
Also, I'd appreciate a hell of a lot more focus from Tim on Apple products, since it looks like more than just a few of us have been disappointed or surprised by recent decisions or product releases that have not met or exceeded expectations.
Using Apple as a platform for social and political causes near and dear to Tim are shifting too much attention from the company. It would be fantastic if someone would go apeshit over the accumulating pile of details that are going unattended, buckle down and take care of business. Get the small stuff nailed down first before releasing things to the public, please Tim!
These "Apple products now suck because Tim (and Apple) care about social issues" posts are so tiresome, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and frankly pathetic in their intent. I mean.. really? I know you're smarter than that, and that you KNOW that this stuff has ZERO bearing on Apple's internal product decisions. Or do you think that Apple's coders are marching in Gay Pride parades instead of doing their work? There's no logic at all to your statement, and the worst thing is that I KNOW that you know that, as most of your posts are intelligent. I know you have certain political views, but try not to take this low hanging fruit of this kind of dishonest argument.
Unfortunately that assumes rational behavior will prevail, which it demonstrably doesn't. It also assumes that individual instances of such discrimination will tend to be isolated, and thus hurt the discriminator more that the discriminated, which history also shows not to be the case. Minorities tend to get picked on, whether out of fear, religious intolerance or any other tribe-type mindset.
I agree that mobs (aka a "democracy") are a dangerous thing and that individual rights, as described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be defended. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment prevents government from creating discriminatory laws, but on an individual level people may be as discriminatory as they want, as distasteful as that may be. Freedom of choice allows people to make personal decisions which may be unpopular, just as freedom of speech ensures wide latitude for speech that is both acceptable and offensive.
Unfortunately that assumes rational behavior will prevail, which it demonstrably doesn't. It also assumes that individual instances of such discrimination will tend to be isolated, and thus hurt the discriminator more that the discriminated, which history also shows not to be the case. Minorities tend to get picked on, whether out of fear, religious intolerance or any other tribe-type mindset.
I agree that mobs (aka a "democracy") are a dangerous thing and that individual rights, as described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be defended. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment prevents government from creating discriminatory laws, but on an individual level people may be as discriminatory as they want, as distasteful as that may be. Freedom of choice allows people to make personal decisions which may be unpopular, just as freedom of speech ensures wide latitude for speech that is both acceptable and offensive.
Well you summarized the issue, but avoided drawing the obvious conclusion. On a personal level the right to discriminate is essential - you want to choose your personal friends and associates. On a business level that right does not exist in the Constitution, at least as generally interpreted even though Churches get to be exempted there for some reason, and so most businesses do not get to discriminate against individuals.
Oh and quit with the silly democracy = mob nonsense.
Well you summarized the issue, but avoided drawing the obvious conclusion. On a personal level the right to discriminate is essential - you want to choose your personal friends and associates. On a business level that right does not exist in the Constitution, at least as generally interpreted even though Churches get to be exempted there for some reason, and so most businesses do not get to discriminate against individuals.
Oh and quit with the silly democracy = mob nonsense.
I'm assuming these laws apply to the majority of businesses because they are legal entities, therefore they are entangled with state and federal regulation.
Comments
Your statement here is complete non sense. The right to freedom of speech is why these people are free to pursue their goals as it is. That is a very good thing as is the right to vocally object. I wonder if you will be so accepting when child molsters start demanding their rights.
In the end a society without standards of behavior can not last long. Eventually everybody will have their own personal axe to grind and chaos will result.
By definition if you are a protected minority you have additional rights that mainstream people don't have. This is the big problem with these ordinances. It creates a class of people that effectively can discriminate against the majority.
Now the question is is this always a bad thing. In extreme cases no, especially if there has been a massive social injustice in the past. Slavery and discrimination against people from Africa is a good example. Gay people simply aren't in that category and don't need special rights.
Sounds great.
Sexuality, gender, age and all of the other factors covered don't matter in the workplace,
Sure it does! Would you higher a geriatric lesbian to work in a bar as a stripper? In general age is a big factor in what you can do work wise and I'm saying this as an old fart that has seen his better days but still needs to work.
Your statement here is complete non sense. The right to freedom of speech is why these people are free to pursue their goals as it is. That is a very good thing as is the right to vocally object. I wonder if you will be so accepting when child molsters start demanding their rights.
In the end a society without standards of behavior can not last long. Eventually everybody will have their own personal axe to grind and chaos will result.
Why do these "freedom of speech" rants always degenerate into such stupid, untenable arguments as you make here? So you equate others who break no laws, but simply don't share your values or are somehow different, with criminals, such as child molesters, and imply that there should be equivalency in their treatment? I can only conclude that the dividing line that the law provides between legal and illegal is irrelevant or invisible to you.
Just wow.
So? This simply isn't the place for social discussions not related to syntax.
Says who? If I look at a whois record for appleinsider.com, is your name going to appear there as the registrant?
Quote:
Since much of what they are asking for here is already protected then why even bother with this ordinance? It will do nothing constructive and just increase the discord with minority groups.
Untrue. This law addresses a many types of discrimination, including these facing the LGBT citizens:
Without this law, a person in Houston could be paid less, passed over for promotions, or even fired simply for being a member of the LGBT community. They could be turned down for an apartment, condo, or hotel rental. Without this law, a company that discriminates against LGBT employees and/or applicants could get contracts with the City of Houston.
So please stop trying to spread falsehoods about this law.
So? This simply isn't the place for social discussions not related to syntax.
Says who? If I look at a whois record for appleinsider.com, is your name going to appear there as the registrant?
Quote:
Since much of what they are asking for here is already protected then why even bother with this ordinance? It will do nothing constructive and just increase the discord with minority groups.
Untrue. This law addresses a many types of discrimination, including these facing the LGBT citizens:
Without this law, a person in Houston could be paid less, passed over for promotions, or even fired simply for being a member of the LGBT community. They could be turned down for an apartment, condo, or hotel rental. Without this law, a company that discriminates against LGBT employees and/or applicants could get contracts with the City of Houston.
So please stop trying to spread falsehoods about this law.
Please stop trying to derail this thread with fact-based arguments. It's highly offensive to some of the older residents.
By definition if you are a protected minority you have additional rights that mainstream people don't have. This is the big problem with these ordinances. It creates a class of people that effectively can discriminate against the majority.
The ordinance reads: “Houston seeks to provide an environment that is free of any type of discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy.”
That means you cant be fired, denied employment, denied housing, or denied access to public accommodations for being straight, or white, or male, or Christian, or U.S. born, or cisgendered, or not pregnant. There's no "class of people" being given different rights than the majority and the majority is not excluded from the protections.
Quote:
Gay people simply aren't in that category and don't need special rights.
This is a prohibition against discrimination. It does not grant "special rights" to any group.
Wonder what Steve Jobs would say about Tim using his Apple platform to focus on social issues.
Jobs would be ticked. He tried very hard to keep Apple neutral in such matters and allow it be what it simply is: a producer of the best products in the world.
Intellectually dishonest posters like you can try to distort history all you want, but anyone looking at the facts, and what Steve has said and done, knows that your statements are complete horse-shit. Anyone who thinks SJ would be "ticked" wasn't paying attention at all to the guy during his time.
http://brandonvogt.com/apples-ceo-gets-wrong-discrimination-religious-freedom/
Also, I'd appreciate a hell of a lot more focus from Tim on Apple products, since it looks like more than just a few of us have been disappointed or surprised by recent decisions or product releases that have not met or exceeded expectations.
Using Apple as a platform for social and political causes near and dear to Tim are shifting too much attention from the company. It would be fantastic if someone would go apeshit over the accumulating pile of details that are going unattended, buckle down and take care of business. Get the small stuff nailed down first before releasing things to the public, please Tim!
I'm not a religious person, but this article brings up some good points:
http://brandonvogt.com/apples-ceo-gets-wrong-discrimination-religious-freedom/
I'd summarize that article as a blatant attempt at obfuscation that, as usual, disingenuously confuses freedom to practice religion as enshrined in the Constitution with freedom to discriminate against others in non-personal (i.e. business etc.) contexts. He adds the additional slant of pontificating on just vs. unjust discrimination, apparently purely to attempt to lessen the negative connotations of the word in all uses, rather than if that were in any way an aspect of the issue that is relevant. Frankly it's an insult to intelligent readers, but then I doubt it's aimed at any such audience.
Using Apple as a platform for social and political causes near and dear to Tim are shifting too much attention from the company.
The board must think that the return he is making, minus a certain amount he is sacrificing for green and social issues (e.g. buying more expensive power because it is green, or paying higher wages to workers than is strictly necessary), is still more than another CEO would generate.
Frankly, I think government oversteps when it gets involved in non-governmental cases of discrimination. Businesses and individuals which are discriminatory would simply go away because of public pressure. There need not be laws against such foolish behavior. Smart people accept the differences in others and well run businesses hire based on the needs of the business and the skills of the worker.
I'd summarize that article as a blatant attempt at obfuscation that, as usual, disingenuously confuses freedom to practice religion as enshrined in the Constitution with freedom to discriminate against others in non-personal (i.e. business etc.) contexts. He adds the additional slant of pontificating on just vs. unjust discrimination, apparently purely to attempt to lessen the negative connotations of the word in all uses, rather than if that were in any way an aspect of the issue that is relevant. Frankly it's an insult to intelligent readers, but then I doubt it's aimed at any such audience.
Frankly, I think government oversteps when it gets involved in non-governmental cases of discrimination. Businesses and individuals which are discriminatory would simply go away because of public pressure. There need not be laws against such foolish behavior. Smart people accept the differences in others and well run businesses hire based on the needs of the business and the skills of the worker.
Unfortunately that assumes rational behavior will prevail, which it demonstrably doesn't. It also assumes that individual instances of such discrimination will tend to be isolated, and thus hurt the discriminator more that the discriminated, which history also shows not to be the case. Minorities tend to get picked on, whether out of fear, religious intolerance or any other tribe-type mindset.
I'm not a religious person, but this article brings up some good points:
http://brandonvogt.com/apples-ceo-gets-wrong-discrimination-religious-freedom/
Also, I'd appreciate a hell of a lot more focus from Tim on Apple products, since it looks like more than just a few of us have been disappointed or surprised by recent decisions or product releases that have not met or exceeded expectations.
Using Apple as a platform for social and political causes near and dear to Tim are shifting too much attention from the company. It would be fantastic if someone would go apeshit over the accumulating pile of details that are going unattended, buckle down and take care of business. Get the small stuff nailed down first before releasing things to the public, please Tim!
These "Apple products now suck because Tim (and Apple) care about social issues" posts are so tiresome, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and frankly pathetic in their intent. I mean.. really? I know you're smarter than that, and that you KNOW that this stuff has ZERO bearing on Apple's internal product decisions. Or do you think that Apple's coders are marching in Gay Pride parades instead of doing their work? There's no logic at all to your statement, and the worst thing is that I KNOW that you know that, as most of your posts are intelligent. I know you have certain political views, but try not to take this low hanging fruit of this kind of dishonest argument.
I agree that mobs (aka a "democracy") are a dangerous thing and that individual rights, as described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be defended. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment prevents government from creating discriminatory laws, but on an individual level people may be as discriminatory as they want, as distasteful as that may be. Freedom of choice allows people to make personal decisions which may be unpopular, just as freedom of speech ensures wide latitude for speech that is both acceptable and offensive.
Unfortunately that assumes rational behavior will prevail, which it demonstrably doesn't. It also assumes that individual instances of such discrimination will tend to be isolated, and thus hurt the discriminator more that the discriminated, which history also shows not to be the case. Minorities tend to get picked on, whether out of fear, religious intolerance or any other tribe-type mindset.
I agree that mobs (aka a "democracy") are a dangerous thing and that individual rights, as described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be defended. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment prevents government from creating discriminatory laws, but on an individual level people may be as discriminatory as they want, as distasteful as that may be. Freedom of choice allows people to make personal decisions which may be unpopular, just as freedom of speech ensures wide latitude for speech that is both acceptable and offensive.
Well you summarized the issue, but avoided drawing the obvious conclusion. On a personal level the right to discriminate is essential - you want to choose your personal friends and associates. On a business level that right does not exist in the Constitution, at least as generally interpreted even though Churches get to be exempted there for some reason, and so most businesses do not get to discriminate against individuals.
Oh and quit with the silly democracy = mob nonsense.
I'm assuming these laws apply to the majority of businesses because they are legal entities, therefore they are entangled with state and federal regulation.
I am needless to say against this and other similar initiatives. They will no doubt be used to further discriminate against my kind.