I wouldn't expect any such thing when it comes to this subject. I think
they should be more considerate, but I think most people in this state would not
ever take into consideration what all of this means! That is a sad thing! They
can not even get the meaning of what it is to be gay! They may all have a
different view about it. I asked my aunt about what she thought gay meant. We
were among family members. Lets just say that I don't think I will ever do
that again. I bet my face was red as a beat and I felt so humiliated. This was
someone that I love and respect! If she had such a view, I can't imagine
what some of these people truly think! They just don't tell you the entire
truth. It is hard to know what they think. That is what makes it so hard! Not
everyone is trying to offend! I hate it! I just don't ask! They don't
know what it is to have to deal with this!
@2bits"Not a special religion, not a special race, or any special
sexual orientation."Non-discrimination laws based on race,
religion, or sexual orientation protect from discrimination to any race,
religion, or sexual orientation. It's just that straight, white, Christians
pretty much never face housing or employment discrimination based on being
straight, white, or Christian so it doesn't really come up in that regard.
Re: 2bits "Like people have said said for a long time (till now mostly
from the left)... "you can't legislat morality". Some people are
just jerks. They need to be educated (not legislated into submission)I don't know the answer but I know you can't give SOME people
special rights. And you can't legislate that people be moral (whatever the
current popular definition of what "moral" is)."That
hasn't stopped the legislature from trying their hardest to legislate
morality. I agree, some people are just jerks, you can't change them. Some
people already have special rights. The LGBT community simply wants to also
enjoy those rights.
Actually, Urquhart's wording is quite careful. The authorities are
permitted to use "external objective evidence" in their determinations.
I think the bill's wording is quite well balanced.
To 2 bits: "IMO we should ALL have the same protections. Isn't that
what "Equal Protection" means? (ref 14th amendment)"--- If the 14th
amendment had been enforced from the time it was enacted I would agree with you,
but it was not. For at least a century it was not only ignored it was actively
subverted. Many groups were singled out for discrimination, that is why we have
protected classes now.
On the surface (pun intended) this seems reasonable however what may seem easily
discernible may not be what it appears. Outward appearances do not always
reflect the internal reality of ones physical structures of the brain, DNA and
chemical balances and other factors that effect a persons gender.
isrredSo how do you prove that you were discriminated against becasue of
your sexual orientation, or your race, or your religion?Would the
landlord have to say, "You can't have this appartment because
you're gay"? Or does the renter just have to suspect that his
lifestyle was a factor?If a Mormon is rejected by a catholic
landlord... can he sue?Part of me thinks the person who owns the
property should be able to make the decision without explanation. What proof
will be needed that being in a protected group was the reason? Or is any
rejection of a person in a protected group no longer allowed?Same
goes for jobs. They employee can leave for any reason he wants. And the
employer can end their working relationship with you for any reason they want
(business needs change, they don't like you, poor performance, etc). He
doesn't have to give a reason. Will this law change that? If they
don't need a reason... how do you know if sexual orientation, religion,
etc, were the reason?It just seems like an un-need and un-enforcable
law to me.
"No special groups should have special protections. Not a special religion,
not a special race, or any special sexual orientation. Laws should protect us
all. No special rules for special groups."That's exactly
how the law is. Non-discrimination laws don't protect people for being
black, Muslim, female, or gay. They protect on the basis of race, religion,
gender, or sexual orientation. Everyone has these characteristics. EVERYONE is
equal under the law in protection from discrimination on these
characteristics.No special rights. No special treatment.
IMO we should ALL have the same protections. Isn't that what "Equal
Protection" means? (ref 14th amendment)The 14th amendment
doesn't say that some special groups will have special protections.No special groups should have special protections. Not a special
religion, not a special race, or any special sexual orientation. Laws should
protect us all. No special rules for special groups.Laws should be
designed to protect everybody (in theory).===Like people
have said said for a long time (till now mostly from the left)... "you
can't legislat morality". Some people are just jerks. They need to
be educated (not legislated into submission)I don't know the
answer but I know you can't give SOME people special rights. And you
can't legislate that people be moral (whatever the current popular
definition of what "moral" is).Maybe the answer is
"education" (to increase tolerance willingly)...not
"government force"?===I don't know how many
landlords discriminate on sexual orientation. Seems like it would be a small
number. Most just want rent. But if one is a jerk... rent another guys
appartment and leave his empty.
Using the reasoning of this author, there should be no laws against threatening
people or verbal abuse because although those things may make you feel afraid
there is no objective proof that you would really be harmed. And we
are going to have to rewrite all our homicide/manslaughter/accidental death laws
so that only the facts matter and not the intent. And all those laws
that make references to what the accused knew or should have known at the time -
that stuff won't matter anymore. Yep, using the reasoning in
this letter we are going to have to change a lot of laws - the world is about to
become a lot harsher.
"objectively discernible facts that are unmistakably clear and not dependent
upon any individual’s “internal sense or perceptions” of
anything at all."Isn't religion one of the protected groups
under the current law? Isn't religion based entirely upon "any
individual’s “internal sense or perceptions” of anything at
all." Why is a choice or opinion about religion given special
protection over sexual orientation?
Isn't your religious belief an internal sense? Your religious beliefs are
just that, beliefs. They are not innate characteristics you are born with. They
are not immutable. Unlike sexual orientation and gender identity, they ARE
definitely a choice. And yet religious beliefs are protected in
non-discrimination statute (and rightly so).