Ruminations on the unfairness of lgbt hogging all the discrimination.

[whyisjohngalt]

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. 

[Tacachale]

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.

[Spitfire]

Wouldn't "diabetic" fall under ADA anyways?

[whyisjohngalt]

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.

[strider]

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.

[whyisjohngalt]

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.

[Adam White]

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.

[whyisjohngalt]

MMR, are you implying that the LGBTQ community deserves more protections than the freckled community?  How would that not be special treatment?

[Adam White]

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?

[whyisjohngalt]

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.

[Tacachale]

^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.

[whyisjohngalt]

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.

[UNFurbanist]

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.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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.

[Adam White]

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?