California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that bans discrimination in state operated or funded programs on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The anti-gay group Focus on the Family wails that the measure "requires businesses receiving funds from the state to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality, or lose funding. No exceptions for faith-based organizations." But over at Positive Liberty, Jon Rowe writes that:
although these antidiscrimination laws do indeed limit private freedom, that's an issue not particular to "sexual orientation codes," but to antidiscrimination laws in general. ...
the antigay right evidences utterly faulty logic whenever it tries to argue that presently existing antidiscrimination statutes are just fine, as long as sexual orientation is kept off the list, because it's not like the other categories. ...
All of this isn't to justify antidiscrimination codes as they apply to private markets but rather to debunk the notion that antidiscrimination codes traditionally protect racial categories only and all other categories on the list are "just like race" in the sense that they are immutable and sexual orientation is not. What nonsense.
As others have pointed out, religion is a lot less "immutable" than sexual orientation, but the religious right activists (who otherwise believe you must freely choose to be a Christian) ignore this contradiction in their demagoguery. As a result, they advocate that their religious beliefs ought to receive government protection that extends to private companies, but that sexual orientation should not be afforded the same privilege. Well, isn't that special!
Other gay-related bills awaiting a decision by the governor would (1) prohibit schools from using textbooks or providing instruction that criticizes people because of their sexual orientation - I rather doubt this was actually much of a problem - and (2) far more significantly, let domestic partners file joint state income tax returns.
4 Comments for “Protections for We But Not for Thee?”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Token window-dressing which the Governator is using as a fig leaf for his decision to bow out on the difficult decision for real marriage equality.
Does anyone honestly think non-discrimination laws prevent people from being fired for being gay?
When was the last time that kids were taught “gay is bad” in public schools?
This is all feel-good crap which requires no tough decision-making and which the Republicrats can point to as “evidence of their commitment to gays,” when it requires not an iota of commitment whatsoever.
I hope we don’t fall for it.
posted by Jon Rowe on
Thanks!
posted by ETJB on
“Does anyone honestly think non-discrimination laws prevent people from being fired for being gay?”
Yes. If the laws are taken seriously, then employers will realize that not support equal opportunity or tolerating workplace sexual harassment is opening yourself up to a lawsuit, not to mention bad pr.
However, broadly worded ‘non-discrimination’ polices can do with more then just EEO in employment. It can also deal with public and private housing, education, credit and banking, health care etc.
Are private sector EEO laws a magical bullet? No. Employers can try and get around the law, and a handful of them may try and do so.
“When was the last time that kids were taught “gay is bad” in public schools?”
I take it, that you were never harassed at your school? Bullying is a problem in public and private schools. Heck, I got death threats.
Part of the problem is that history is simply not taught to kids. My liberal American history text book circa 1994, listed gays as among those killed in the Holocaust, and then had a small paragraph about the Stonewall rebellion tied to a larger discussion on AIDS.
I doubt that it has gotten much better then that. Although perhaps some one has access to a mainstream, recent high school history textbook.
I.e. The entire early gay rights movement from about 1850’s – 1933 in Germany is ignored.
posted by Randy R. on
Better to have inadequate protections than none at all, which is the case in many states and localities.
But anti-discrimination laws DO work. Overt discrimination against blacks and other minorities in the workplace has dramatically declined the decades since the civil rights acts were enacted in the 1960s and 70s.
But the real value in these laws isn’t the laws themselves: it’s the imprimatur of law that says that discrimination isn’t cool and isn’t acceptable, and that changes attitudes. So long as the law says it’s okay to discriminate, it’s okay. So long as the law say’s it is not, it starts to change attitudes.
As a libertatarian, you may not agree that this is a proper function of gov’t. Nonetheless, the law still has a powerful moral authority about it that can be used for the betterment of all.