The HRO doesn't protect the rights "of people". It is explicitly for the LGBTQ community. It should be called the LGBTQRO as people that are discriminated against for being overweight, balding, diabetic, or another other identifiable characteristic aren't represented.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 06, 2016, 07:55:11 PM
The HRO doesn't protect the rights "of people". It is explicitly for the LGBTQ community. It should be called the LGBTQRO as people that are discriminated against for being overweight, balding, diabetic, or another other identifiable characteristic aren't represented.
Actually, Jacksonville already has an Human Rights Ordinance protecting people from discrimination based on race, sex, age, religion, etc. The proposed bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the existing ordinance. Your other points are just misdirection away from the matter at hand.
Wouldn't "diabetic" fall under ADA anyways?
Exactly, StephenDare. You are correct. A person is born with a certain level of IQ. They can't help it. It's not a lifestyle choice. Yet it is legal to discriminate against these people.
The currently proposed ordinance will not change that and only serves a select group - a special group with "special rights" since people with freckles, or pick marks, or distasteful body odor - all currently discriminated against people - aren't served. The "HRO" is actually doing this overlooked majority a disservice and pretending it isn't is absurd.
The "HRO" should be expounded to make discrimination against every possible trait instead of just serving a special few. This would likely pass at least instead of semantic arguments about "lifestyle" etc.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 05:42:35 AM
Exactly, StephenDare. You are correct. A person is born with a certain level of IQ. They can't help it. It's not a lifestyle choice. Yet it is legal to discriminate against these people.
The currently proposed ordinance will not change that and only serves a select group - a special group with "special rights" since people with freckles, or pick marks, or distasteful body odor - all currently discriminated against people - aren't served. The "HRO" is actually doing this overlooked majority a disservice and pretending it isn't is absurd.
The "HRO" should be expounded to make discrimination against every possible trait instead of just serving a special few. This would likely pass at least instead of semantic arguments about "lifestyle" etc.
Again, posts like this are in response to a belief that the protects are what gives rights. The protections are granted because a large percentage of a group of people are being consistently denied those rights. Enough so that protections are afforded so that it is much more difficult to deny those rights and if they are, it is much easier and likely that legal action will be taken and be successful. That person who was fired for being bald could actually have a case for wrongful termination, the issue is simply that being bald is not a protected class and so he is less likely to be successful in a lawsuit. If you are bald, whyisjohngalt, you could start a campaign to get those protections and if enough discrimination is proven, get those protections.
Large, yet unverified, percentage? Compared to what? 100% of people have a characteristic that can be discriminated against - and have at some point in their life. Why not actual work to pass something that helps everyone not only people that choose to identify themselves by their sexual orientation? The "H" is "HRO" stands for human not homo. Has enough discrimination been proven to get protections for the special class? Did these surveys ask if a person was discriminated against in anyway - not just as a self selecting LGBT - but at all? If these changes are being made so that legal action "will be successful" then this is for special interests not a positive change.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on March 07, 2016, 10:11:32 AM
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 05:42:35 AM
The currently proposed ordinance will not change that and only serves a select group - a special group with "special rights" since people with freckles, or pick marks, or distasteful body odor - all currently discriminated against people - aren't served. The "HRO" is actually doing this overlooked majority a disservice and pretending it isn't is absurd.
When you throw out the supposed discrimination of freckled people as a reason to disagree with the HRO, do you honestly think people respect that argument and don't instead think you are a grasping-at-whatever-argument-possible doofus?
That's an argument you're never going to win. Once a person starts employing that sort of 'logic,' the prospects of actually being able to reason with him diminish to practically nil.
MMR, are you implying that the LGBTQ community deserves more protections than the freckled community? How would that not be special treatment?
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 10:52:05 AM
MMR, are you implying that the LGBTQ community deserves more protections than the freckled community? How would that not be special treatment?
Are you implying that there are no gay people with freckles?
Yes, Adam, there are gay people with freckles. If they were discriminated against, we would need data to prove that it was due to their sexual identity and not their freckles. There is selection bias in all the data I've seen presented by the LGBTQ community while discounting other traits that could be discriminated against.
^You're just looking for a reason to dismiss or explain away discrimination against LGBT people. I also think you know that. The fact is that LGBT people *do* face discrimination for being LGBT, including at work, in housing, and in public accomadition. And furthermore, our workforce suffers by the fact that some LGBT people (and their families) avoid or leave Jacksonville specifically because the city doesn't have these basic protections now offered in almost all cities we compete with.
Not true. I'm not dismissing LGBTQ discrimination. Everyone faces discrimination and if you want protections for a few - while arguing that sexual identity isn't a choice - then the same protections have to be extended to the multitude of traits and characteristics that are discriminated against. Tacahale, I know you have statistics to support the workforce flight you mention so please share. It's becoming clear that the studies being presented aren't inclusive of all the ways people are discriminated against and as such are biased. If you want an "HRO" to pass, increasing the number served/protected will do that.
I mean the HRO already covers a lot of different traits. Race, gender, religion, disability etc. But if you aren't dissenting the fact that LGBT people are discriminated against then you should be all for this expanded provision. Once it passes and you believe it should include further protections for different characteristics then you can start the campaign to add protections for freckled people, hair color, shoe size, species or whatever the f#*k you want. Difference is you might not get a similarly sizable coalition of support. HROs have always been built piecemeal and right now its time to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Saying that it's everyone for every reason or no gays isn't really a solid argument IMO.
After some thought, WIJG has a semi-valid point.
And while it would be nice to legislate discrimination out of existence, that's never going to happen. So just like with all of the other equality in rights movements (women, minorities, etc), the group that speaks the loudest and has proof of actual discrimination will get heard.
So while your argument my be somewhat valid, until The Freckles unite and start demanding equality from discriminatory practices based solely on their sporadic melanin production, they'll just have to get by with the other protections allowed by law.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 12:32:07 PM
Not true. I'm not dismissing LGBTQ discrimination. Everyone faces discrimination and if you want protections for a few - while arguing that sexual identity isn't a choice - then the same protections have to be extended to the multitude of traits and characteristics that are discriminated against. Tacahale, I know you have statistics to support the workforce flight you mention so please share. It's becoming clear that the studies being presented aren't inclusive of all the ways people are discriminated against and as such are biased. If you want an "HRO" to pass, increasing the number served/protected will do that.
Can you produce data to show that freckled people have faced employment discrimination?
Semi-thanks, NRW.
The squeaky wheel argument. The part about unbiased proof of actual discrimination is vital. Disqualifying surveyed participants based on sexual identity makes the data collected useless when arguing against discrimination - while explicitly doing so.
There is some irony about a minority trying to rally the support of the majority for their cause - at the same time excluding broad discrimination. It's like saying our problems are more important than your's - so you should support us - even though the problems are shared - and we won't support you.
What do you think the Little People of America think about the "HRO" excluding them? You want to tell them to go fight their own fight?
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 01:53:33 PM
Semi-thanks, NRW.
The squeaky wheel argument. The part about unbiased proof of actual discrimination is vital. Disqualifying surveyed participants based on sexual identity makes the data collected useless when arguing against discrimination - while explicitly doing so.
There is some irony about a minority trying to rally the support of the majority for their cause - at the same time excluding broad discrimination. It's like saying our problems are more important than your's - so you should support us - even though the problems are shared - and we won't support you.
What do you think the Little People of America think about the "HRO" excluding them? You want to tell them to go fight their own fight?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990)
http://www.lpaonline.org/faq-#Disability (http://www.lpaonline.org/faq-#Disability)
Dwarfism is a recognized condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Information on the ADA is also available directly from the US Department of Justice, which administers the law.
Sorry, Adam, I didn't mean that little. I was talking about people between 4'11 and 5'3. Arguably short people not included in the ADA. Just short and discriminated against without protections.
Interesting discussion. Reminds me of when handicap parking spots and placards came out.
I asked a friend of mine who applied and got the plate why he thought it was important. He told me "because we want to be treated like everyone else"
I told him "everyone else aren't allowed to park 10 feet from the front door....they have to fend for a spot like everyone"
So it shifted from equal treatment to equalizing access.
I am not against HC parking spots BTW, I just see some similarities in some the arguments made here.
Keep up the good discussion.
If you're seriously claiming that we shouldn't protect anyone until we protect all forms of human variation that pop into your head, good luck removing race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. from the city's current HRO.
Just expanding the scope of the "HRO" to serve all humans instead of a "LGBTQRO".
What's the status of your current " HRO" without trying to appeal to the majority, anyways. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That seems to be the opposition's stance as well.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 07, 2016, 02:30:16 PM
If you're seriously claiming that we shouldn't protect anyone until we protect all forms of human variation that pop into your head, good luck removing race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. from the city's current HRO.
I don't believe that WIJG is 'seriously' anything.
The opposition's stance is honestly:
"My religion tells me you are a sinner so I should be able to discriminate against you and not have to serve you, rent to you or hire you because of the way you were born" "I don't like your kind"
That's the real issue and since distinct and persistent discrimination exists an expanded HRO should then be codified into law for their protection. Legally speaking it is exactly the same as the civil rights struggle. I don't really know any other way to say it. The conversation on this seems to just circle the drain the same way.
To the OP, when you present Strawman and logical fallacies as the basis for your argument then all credibility is lost and.
The renaming of this thread = genius
Quote from: UNFurbanist on March 07, 2016, 04:25:36 PM
The renaming of this thread = genius
All discrimination matters!
Quote from: stephendare on March 07, 2016, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on March 07, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 10:52:05 AM
MMR, are you implying that the LGBTQ community deserves more protections than the freckled community? How would that not be special treatment?
You're goddamn right I am, (decency of these forums be damned) you fucking willfully ignorant dipshit. I've never seen anyone have his ass kicked for being freckled, I've never seen anyone humiliated over freckles, I've never seen someone economically disadvantaged over freckles.
The fact you just gloss over the very real discrimination and violence against gay people just to make some right-wing jack-off fantasy post where you think you made some clever point to all us libtards is absolutely disgusting.
So just to be clear, this violates our rules of civility. Please amend the post so that none of the insults are directed at a person. While John Galt is a troll, they remain within our rules of engagement.
So the is the question, who is why is john galt?
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on March 07, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on March 07, 2016, 10:52:05 AM
MMR, are you implying that the LGBTQ community deserves more protections than the freckled community? How would that not be special treatment?
You're goddamn right I am, (decency of these forums be damned) you fucking willfully ignorant dipshit. I've never seen anyone have his ass kicked for being freckled, I've never seen anyone humiliated over freckles, I've never seen someone economically disadvantaged over freckles.
The fact you just gloss over the very real discrimination and violence against gay people just to make some right-wing jack-off fantasy post where you think you made some clever point to all us libtards is absolutely disgusting.
I see some things never change, MMR. I've acknowledged - not glossed over - the LGBTQ discrimination and simply point out that this discrimination serves only the minority identifying themselves by their sexual orientation and not the majority of us that are discriminated against for various reasons outside of our control. You are included - as it is a "human" rights ordinance - and if you've been discriminated against for being a libtard - then that should not be tolerated. We're here - and will - protect you. You're just going to have to get used to being included in a "human rights ordinance" that protects everyone.
Why not amend your position to be inclusive of everyone? What harm would it actual do to include discrimination against heightism - for instance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination) ) which actual has data than to continue the narrow scope of the current proposal. Are you pretending that protecting more classes is a bad thing?
As far as the libtard / right wing / circle jerk rhetoric, what are you trying to say? I'll take your attacks as long as the people with freckles and people with blond hair stop having their discrimination glossed over. Equal rights = equal rights. 2 rights don't make a wrong.
^So yes or no are you against the LGBT HRO expansion? Since you have admitted to their discrimination. I get the argument you make that it should be for everyone for every reason (although I'm pretty sure this is all a trolling sarcasm). But then are you not making perfect the enemy of good? Shouldn't you be rallying for this expansion and quickly moving forward with your next campaign to add heightism and freckelism soon after? Isn't that more pragmatic then expecting all of everything all at once? This is all just such a ridiculous conversation that I'm not sure why I keep participating.