Ruminations on the unfairness of lgbt hogging all the discrimination.

[whyisjohngalt]

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? 

[Adam White]

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

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.

[whyisjohngalt]

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.

[spuwho]

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.

[Tacachale]

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.

[whyisjohngalt]

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.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

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. 

[UNFurbanist]

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.

[Snufflee]

To the OP, when you present Strawman and logical fallacies as the basis for your argument then all credibility is lost and. 

[UNFurbanist]

The renaming of this thread = genius

[Adam White]

The renaming of this thread = genius

All discrimination matters!

[Tacachale]

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?

[whyisjohngalt]

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 ) 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.

[UNFurbanist]

^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.