Developer Jeff Morr delays Jacksonville plans pending the HRO

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

If a marriage counseling business provides married couples with counseling to avoid divorce, wouldn't it be odd for the marriage counselor to be divoreced?  Shouldn't the business consider the marital status of its employees considering it has a business interest in the marital status of its employees?

What about a Marriage Counselor who has never been married?

Can Addiction Counselors not be effective if they were once an addict?

Is a Personal Fitness Trainer less effective if they were once overweight?

As a hiring manager, you should know that the only thing that should be considered is someone's ability to do their job effectively once hired.  Without the HRO, you have effectively lessened the talent pool of applicants for the some of the same reasons that you would choose to not look to reside in some of the places SD mentioned.

I'm just applying the same logic for faith-based institutions.  How can we force a church that's against homosexuality to not consider sexual preference when considering candidates?

They can consider it just as much as anyone hiring 'considers' marital status, age, ethnicity, etc..  the difference is that with an HRO in place, just like with any other protected class, that aspect can't be the determining factor of whether or not someone is hired or fired or otherwise discriminated against and offers the person a  legal recourse if it can be proven that their sexuality was the actual causation (or lack thereof in hiring) 

That's all.

With the HRO, no one is being forced to hire gays, blacks, women or elderly, they're just not allowed to discriminate based solely on those issues.

[Tacachale]

And again, religious organizations would almost certainly be exempted anyway.

[southsider1015]

If a marriage counseling business provides married couples with counseling to avoid divorce, wouldn't it be odd for the marriage counselor to be divoreced?  Shouldn't the business consider the marital status of its employees considering it has a business interest in the marital status of its employees?

What about a Marriage Counselor who has never been married?

Can Addiction Counselors not be effective if they were once an addict?

Is a Personal Fitness Trainer less effective if they were once overweight?

As a hiring manager, you should know that the only thing that should be considered is someone's ability to do their job effectively once hired.  Without the HRO, you have effectively lessened the talent pool of applicants for the some of the same reasons that you would choose to not look to reside in some of the places SD mentioned.

I'm just applying the same logic for faith-based institutions.  How can we force a church that's against homosexuality to not consider sexual preference when considering candidates?

They can consider it just as much as anyone hiring 'considers' marital status, age, ethnicity, etc..  the difference is that with an HRO in place, just like with any other protected class, that aspect can't be the determining factor of whether or not someone is hired or fired or otherwise discriminated against and offers the person a  legal recourse if it can be proven that their sexuality was the actual causation (or lack thereof in hiring) 

That's all.

With the HRO, no one is being forced to hire gays, blacks, women or elderly, they're just not allowed to discriminate based solely on those issues.

Good points, I agree.  In fact, I understand many of the best addict counselors and fitness trainers are the ones that were addicts and severally overweight.  Nothing like a good perspective and past similar experience to help.  But honestly, I'd never take marital advice from my sngle friends, nor parental advice from someone without kids.

The sole reason or determining factor aspect hasn't been brought up, and maybe it should be.  I would think that actually proving prejudice might be difficult given the number of factors in hiring/firing decisions.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I would think that actually proving prejudice might be difficult given the number of factors in hiring/firing decisions.

I would agree.  And the difference is that, as it stands, if it were proven that someone was not hired/fired because of their sexual orientation, there is no recourse.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not really that up to date with the verbiage in the HRO as presented; these are more my personal feelings and understanding than any researched information, but isn't the sticking point and a majority of the media focus on the gender identity regarding public restrooms, the Bathroom Bill as it were?

[whyisjohngalt]

I think bald people get discriminated against.

Why would they choose that?

[southsider1015]

SD, the president just recently referred to it as a lifestyle.  Google "Obama lifestyle choice".  Apparently he received a free pass on using.  Based on your continued " interest " in my own usage of the word, I'd say that you're looking to internet slap me once I try to explain my understanding of the term.

Why don't you go ahead and drop the "offensiveness" bomb that you've been waiting two days to do?

[whyisjohngalt]

None of those examples would be changed by the HRO.

Besides, perhaps it would interest you to know the other perspective - that heterosexual people have been getting beaten, murdered, raped and harassed since you and I were kids.

[Bridges]

Besides, perhaps it would interest you to know the other perspective - that heterosexual people have been getting beaten, murdered, raped and harassed since you and I were kids.

For the sole reason of being heterosexual?

[Tacachale]

I would think that actually proving prejudice might be difficult given the number of factors in hiring/firing decisions.

I would agree.  And the difference is that, as it stands, if it were proven that someone was not hired/fired because of their sexual orientation, there is no recourse.

The idea with a lot of civil rights legislation like this is that the majority of businesses and people will follow the law. Businesses and property owners will factor it into their hiring and rental policies and their training. And of course there will be a recourse for those that openly flaunt the law, which will be fewer and fewer once it's passed. It won't stop all discrimination but it will help.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not really that up to date with the verbiage in the HRO as presented; these are more my personal feelings and understanding than any researched information, but isn't the sticking point and a majority of the media focus on the gender identity regarding public restrooms, the Bathroom Bill as it were?

Yes, the anti-HRO side has seized on the "gender identity and expression" element of the bill and honed in how this affects bathrooms (the full-inclusion version of bill would add "sexual orientation, gender identity and expression" to the list of things that can't be used as a basis to discriminate). Basically what they're doing is honing on the section that deals with transsexuals, as there's much less public support for transsexuals than for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The bathroom thing is pretty cynical, considering that the bill doesn't say anything about bathrooms, and trans people are already using the bathroom of their gender identity anyway. But it works.

We're likely to see some work and compromise on the specific wording and on the other material (ie what is covered and what's exempted). The goal for HRO supporters is to pass something that (1) can pass, and (2) won't be overturned in referendum.

[Tacachale]

SD, the president just recently referred to it as a lifestyle.  Google "Obama lifestyle choice".  Apparently he received a free pass on using.  Based on your continued " interest " in my own usage of the word, I'd say that you're looking to internet slap me once I try to explain my understanding of the term.

Why don't you go ahead and drop the "offensiveness" bomb that you've been waiting two days to do?

Once again, I literally have no idea what you are talking about, and Im not looking to drop any bombs on you at all.

Still curious.  But if its a secret that only you and president obama can  share, at least let me know why its secret.

Admittedly I didn't make the point very well, but the reason I mentioned the "lifestyle" issue earlier wasn't to start a debate over this word, but to point out that discrimination still occurs regardless of what people do or how they act. Sometimes it's framed as if homosexuality is a matter of action and affect, but discrimination still occurs regardless of peoples' lifestyle.

This is an older example, but one of the best explanations of how this can happen is what went on under the Johns Committee in the 60s. A Florida Legislature committee targeted professors and students at state universities for "suspected homosexuality". Few of the people targeted were living anything resembling a gay lifestyle remotely in the open. Most were closeted or otherwise secretive, or were straight people who got caught up in the investigation; victims were targeted based on such things as rumors from students, being seen having lunch with other professors of their sex, and even just wearing shorts.

Fortunately we're past that now, but the point is that people are targeted not only for what they do, but for just for being LGBT (or being thought to be LGBT).

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

But I think if you confront the argument logically the public will get it.

I don't know how you can frame an argument logically when the opposing viewpoint has the notion that this bill is designed to allow predatory men who dress up as women in order to encounter children in public restrooms. 

[Tacachale]

But I think if you confront the argument logically the public will get it.

I don't know how you can frame an argument logically when the opposing viewpoint has the notion that this bill is designed to allow predatory men who dress up as women in order to encounter children in public restrooms. 

Yeah, it's crazy, and frustrating, but unfortunately I don't know that logic will work to confront it. It strikes at such a visceral level. But here's hoping.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Can anyone define what they mean by 'gay lifestyle'?

I literally don't know what this refers to.

First we'll need you to define 'they'.

I literally don't know whom you're referring to. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

But I think if you confront the argument logically the public will get it.

I don't know how you can frame an argument logically when the opposing viewpoint has the notion that this bill is designed to allow predatory men who dress up as women in order to encounter children in public restrooms.

I think because your opponents aren't ever going to vote for it anyways.  Its the rest of the public that you have to convince.

I think the majority of the public is still unsure of how it feels about trans-gender or trans-identity people as they're the minority of a minority.  Passing this any bill like this faces a steep uphill battle. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Can anyone define what they mean by 'gay lifestyle'?

I literally don't know what this refers to.

First we'll need you to define 'they'.

I literally don't know whom you're referring to. 

They = anyone in this thread who has used the term (besides myself, since I don't know what it means)

southsider apparently doesn't support 'it', and tacachale gave us the passage about Kingsfoil from the Master Healer in the Lord of the Rings, but Ill be damned if I can tell what is being discussed.

I can only offer you my personal definition of 'gay lifestyle'.  I believe it's full of "guatemalan-ness"...