Just to be clear... By pushing ENDA toward an inevitable Bush veto, the Democratic leadership anticipates not only galvanizing the LGB (if not T) bloc behind Hillary, but also putting GOP front-runner Giuliani on the spot-if he stays true to his principles and urges Bush not to veto, he hurts himself with the GOP base (and because Bush will veto anyway, it hangs over him during the general election, should he be the nominee). If Giuliani equivocates, he hurts himself with his more socially liberal supporters. It's a win-win for Democrats, which is why Pelosi and the leadership are pushing so hard for a T-less (and thus passable) bill.
Update. But wait, now it seems like Pelosi is saying that the bill will only move with Ts included-which means that in all likelihood it won't be going anywhere soon. They're in, they're out...they're in (for now). Update to the Update: Ok, maybe they're still out, with Pelosi saying she's fully committed to moving an inclusive ENDA forward once the votes are there (don't hold your breath), but then adding that the bill minus Ts is going forward in any event. If so, then we're back to the situation described below...
(Original post) They're out; they're in; they're out... Looks like Rep. Barney Frank wants to push through committee a version of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act that does not include transgenders, yelping activists be damned. The two key points in the New York Times report, Liberal Base Proves Trying to Democrats (and I paraphrase below):
(1) There is almost no chance that President Bush would ever sign the bill.
(2) Some Republicans in the House wish the bill had included language on transpeople because it would have made it easier for them to vote against it (and demagogue it-think of employers being forced to hire bearded men wearing dresses).
The Times reports that gay rights groups are "angry and bewildered, especially because the compromise involves a bill unlikely to be signed by Mr. Bush." But Barney Frank and party leaders want to pass ENDA knowing Bush will veto it, because they believe it will energize gay and gay-friendly voters in the 2008 election. The great "T" debate complicates that, but they still seem committed to this strategy.
In the real world, however, ENDA (with or without Ts) seems increasingly less relevant. As a story on 365gay.com, The Gay Glass Ceiling, notes:
When it comes to the workplace, gay and lesbian activists have focused mainly on ending overt and obvious harassment and discriminatory hiring, firing, and promotion practices.... [But] formal policies are less of a predictor of gay and lesbian happiness at work than are informal measures, such as whether someone feels comfortable bringing a partner to a company event.
It's the corporate culture that counts most, regardless of official nondiscrimination policies (mandated or not). At best, passing nondiscrimination laws may indicate that a shift in attitudes has occurred. In other words, by the time you can garner enough support to pass an ENDA, it's not really needed.
60 Comments for “Barney Frank ‘Not Gay Enough’?”
posted by Kevin on
I’ve had 2 friends here in Oklahoma fired from their corporate jobs in the last year simply for being gay. They don’t have the means to simply pack up and move to a more tolerant place. I’ll make sure to tell them their problem is not “relevant”.
posted by Avee on
With ENDA, anti-gay employers just won’t hire out gay people. Even employers who are not anti-gay would be less likely to hire gays, knowing that (1) unlike racial anti-discrimination laws, ENDA has no "disparate impact" requirement mandating that a percentage of minorities be hired and (2) and so if you hire gays, it’s just harder to fire them because they can claim anti-gay discrimination is behind it. (This happens frequently with racial minorities; often employers settle because going to court is so much more expensive, and disparate impact forces them to meet diversity quotas).
Minorities and gays might even believe bigotry got them fired; it’s much easier than dealing with the fact that they might have been less than optimal employees for a number of reasons.
posted by Randy on
Sorry, Avee, but you are just plain wrong.
At least one third of the entire workforce is ALREADY covered by ENDA. Several states, and quite a few cities and other municipalities already have non-discrimination laws. Additionally, a majority of Fortune 500 companies also have HR rules about this.
if what you say is true, then we would have some evidence that out gays have a tougher time getting jobs in these jurisdictions. Happily, there is no evidence of this.
All you offer, AVee, is speculation. You have not cited any studies or reports whatsoever. Since such a large percentage of the population already is covered, if there were a problem, there would be some evidence. If you cant’ cite any by now, then there likely isn’t a problem.
posted by Alice AN on
“…by the time you can garner enough support to pass an ENDA, it’s not really needed.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. 🙂
Of course, I still think they should try and pass ENDA regardless. There is no match for the law proclaiming it unjust to discriminate against a minority.
posted by notacubefarmer on
What about people working for samll mom and pops, who don’t have the benefit of large corporate HR policies? This discussion, like most on this board, is so weighted to white collar concerns I have to giggle. Of course this should be passed into law, with or without the “T”… any protection helps.
posted by Xeno on
What about people working for samll mom and pops.
Truly small “mom and pops” won’t be covered by the law. And why would someone want to force an employer at a small, often family-run business to hire them? It’s not like cracking GE or IBM.
posted by Lori Heine on
If someone doesn’t want to hire me because I’m gay, I wouldn’t want to work for that person anyway. So they weed themselves out at the same time they weed me out. That’s a win-win for everybody involved. Who wants to work for a bigot?
You can’t force people to change their minds simply by passing a law. When are we ever going to understand that?
That’s what happened in the 60’s and 70’s, in a wide variety of different ways. And it’s given us the backlash we’ve been putting up with ever since. We can’t simply trust that most people have enough sense to learn — in time — that their bigoted fears are unfounded.
Unfortunately, there’s no real shortcut to letting that happen. When bigots are denied the “right” to practice their bigotry, they get all puffed-up about it and feel like martyrs.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Who wants to work for a bigot?”
Someone who needs to work and cannot afford to be discriminating.
“You can’t force people to change their minds simply by passing a law.”
You cannot force people to change their minds, and renounce their prejudices. But you can prevent them, or at least deter them, from acting on their prejudices by making such action more difficult and costly. Most bigots are not fanatical to the point where their prejudices override everything else, including their own interest.
posted by Xeno on
Forcing a small mom & pop to hire a gay person or transexual is a sure way to turn people who are neutral toward gays into anti-gay crusaders.
posted by MArc on
Whether or not the law is “needed” isn’t really the point; the symbolism of it can make a big impact. I live in a mid-size metropolitan city. In the 1980s, anti-gay sentiment was rampant; gays were often attacked, bars were vandalized, etc. In the later ’80s, the city council passed an anti-discriminary law that included gays. One bar owner told me it was “like turning off a switch.” The straights and gays began to find a truce because the politicians had made a stance against gay bashing. I know that this isn’t the ’80s anymore, but there is still is plenty of anti-gay sentiment left in America. A Mom&Pop store should be accountable for their actions as much as Microsoft. This bill would have helped transgendered people, even without their inclusion in it. Too bad it’s going to be DOA.
posted by Eva Young on
That’s not what Pelosi is saying. She is saying that the inclusive bill will be brought forward when the votes are there. ENDA without trans is still being brought forward. Please correct this.
posted by Lori Heine on
“But you can prevent them, or at least deter them, from acting on their prejudices by making such action more difficult and costly. Most bigots are not fanatical to the point where their prejudices override everything else, including their own interest.”
That is true, but there is a much less coercive way of doing this. Instead of having the government interfere with an employer’s decision of whom to hire or fire — something that will generate a lot of backlash, and not without some justification — there is another option.
A much more just and less-coercive law would be one mandating that employers who do not wish to hire gays “come out” publicly and say so. That way gay employees are not walking blind into a bad situation.
If these employers are refusing to hire gays supposedly because of some high principle, then certainly they shouldn’t mind going public with their prejudice. If they’re more afraid of losing business, then they should have to bite the big one and hire gays. Let them put their high-minded principles where their pocketbooks are.
I would defend to the death anyone’s right to stand up for principle, whether I agree with those principles or not. Just as long as they’ve got the guts to stand up for them. All but the most sincerely principled employers would become un-prejudiced really fast if they knew public exposure and loss of business would result from it.
posted by Randy on
Xeno: “Forcing a small mom & pop to hire a gay person or transexual is a sure way to turn people who are neutral toward gays into anti-gay crusaders.”
Which is why no one is forcing them to do so. ENDA excempts small businesses.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“A much more just and less-coercive law would be one mandating that employers who do not wish to hire gays ‘come out’ publicly and say so.”
I completely agree. As you pointed out, business owners and managers who have such a strong commitment to their values should have no objection to let it known to the world. And such information would be in eveyone’s interest: job applicants, potential customers, and business partners of any kind.
posted by Xeno on
Randy: Which is why no one is forcing them to do so. ENDA exempts small businesses.
Yes, I know that. I was responding to the prior posting from notacubefarmer: What about people working for samll mom and pops, who don’t have the benefit of large corporate HR policies? Read the entire thread before taking a pot shot.
posted by Dave in Northridge on
I always find it amusing when gay people in protected jobs (jobs in which there’s no question they won’t be harassed for ANY reason, sexual orientation among them) make believe that “It’s the corporate culture that counts most, regardless of official nondiscrimination policies (mandated or not).” It’s not called an ivory tower for nothing, Mr. Miller; please remember that it’s where you work when you castigate people for trying to level the playing field for those of us who aren’t protected by ivory tower conditions.
posted by ETJB on
(1) As has been pointed out before, not every LGBT person is rich, white and well educated. Some cannot simply pack up and move to some upper-income urban center.
(2) A business generally does not suffer because they engage in discrimination, especially when it comes to jobs in the lower middle and working classes.
posted by ETJB on
Most civil rights legislation exempts small businesses, and most sexual orientation inclusive laws exempt religious groups.
posted by Lori Heine on
Man, we really have been indoctrinated into the “Mommy State can do anything” mentality, haven’t we?
One more time…we can NOT force other people to like us. Nor is it in anybody’s best interests — even our own — for us to have the government keep employers from hiring or firing whomever they choose.
That can be used against us. There’s nothing to stop homophobes from demanding to be employed, too, by companies that do not want them. If we don’t stop relying upon government coercion, we’re going to live to regret it.
In more than a few ways, some of us already are.
posted by Randy on
Lori: “One more time…we can NOT force other people to like us.”
True. But ENDA doesn’t require anyone to like us.
“Nor is it in anybody’s best interests — even our own — for us to have the government keep employers from hiring or firing whomever they choose.”
Not true. Just ask any person who was actually fired when the boss found out he or she was gay. Most want their jobs back. Surely, that is ‘their own interest.’
And if we take your argument at face value, you are arguing that any employer should be able to discriminate against anyone in hiring, based on age, race, creed and so on. Every single national employer disagrees with you, of course, as does most Americans. You aren’t going to get any traction with that one.
Xeno, I still don’t get your point. I agree forcing small mom and pop stores to do anything at all isnt’ going to win them over to us. That’s why they exempt. Are you arguing that ENDA should cover the small mom and pops?
posted by RAndy on
Just to be clear, Stephen, are you suggesting that the primary reason the Democrats are voting for ENDA is to make Bush look bad, put Guiliani on the spot, and crown Hilary our front-runner? Wow — I didn’t know us gays had such power!
In order to diffuse this, then the best thing for Bush to do would be to sign the bill and foil the evil Dems plans, right?
posted by Brian Miller on
ENDA doesn’t require anyone to like us.
Sure it does.
Most supporters of ENDA support it not because there’s a massive crisis of gay people being fired by bigots all over the country — there clearly isn’t.
It’s because they have a problem with being not-liked, and imagine that ENDA and similar bureaucracy and quota laws will somehow force people who don’t like gays into accepting and embracing us. That’s why there’s such fanatical devotion to ENDA by “activists” who are out of touch with the everyday gay mainstream — the activists want to engineer social change, not achieve the grassroots goal of equality under the law.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And if we take your argument at face value, you are arguing that any employer should be able to discriminate against anyone in hiring, based on age, race, creed and so on. Every single national employer disagrees with you, of course, as does most Americans. You aren’t going to get any traction with that one.”
No, Randy, I am arguing not about what an employer SHOULD do — we don’t all live in the Magical Land of Make Believe, where somebody died and made us God and we get to decide how other people think — but rather about what an employer COULD do. Those are two totally different things, and we all need to grow up and realize that.
Can you pass a law that will — abracadabra! — magically stop people from disliking and discriminating against others? Absolutely no evidence exists that human nature works that way. And no amount of wishing is going to change that.
Laws attempting to force people to employ those they don’t like are based on nursery-school thinking. They have no basis in reality. They do more harm than good, because they circumvent the necessary process of winning over hearts and minds. Politicians who peddle such baby-talk to us are nothing more than cynical frauds.
Those who feel forced to hire those they dislike are not that easily bullied. They will merely contrive some other reason to fire or refuse to hire us.
What we should be doing, instead, is looking more closely at the changes taking place in businesses that have — entirely on their own — decided it is in their best interests to employ us.
Let’s spread the happiness — not the misery.
posted by Avee on
Just to be clear, Stephen, are you suggesting that the primary reason the Democrats are voting for ENDA is to make Bush look bad, put Guiliani on the spot, and crown Hilary our front-runner? Wow — I didn’t know us gays had such power!
Steve doesn’t spar in the comment areas, but I’ll take a crack. It’s not that we gays have so much power, it’s that homophobia is so potent. Forcing Rudy to publically reaffirm his support for ENDA during the primary and/or general would hurt his election chances because of so much homophobia in the GOP.
Democrats of course know this. I’m amazed that Steve’s astute political observation has been virtually unsaid during this whole debate. Why do you think ENDA is being pushed now, even in the fact of so much opposition by LGBT activists? It’s politics, baby. It’s all politics…
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
I suspect that you are a libertarian. That is fine, and I have many libertarian friends. However, if you are going to convice people that civil rights are bad, then you just might want to change your tactics.
“We can NOT force other people to like us.”
Do you support the repeal of the civil rights act of 1964 or the similar civil rights laws that came out during the initiail decades after WWII?
This legislation was enacted, and upheld, for a reason. Just as the progressive legislation of the 19th century. It was no big mystery, no socialist take over or arch-criminal behind it all.
“There’s nothing to stop homophobes from demanding to be employed, too.”
People who attack equal opportunity, often have little understanding of the law. Would the homophobe be denied a job due ot his sexual orientation or politics or religion? How big is the job? What is its purpose?
by companies that do not want them. If we don’t stop relying upon government coercion, we’re going to live to regret it.
In more than a few ways, some of us already are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, and let us remember what these people who scream about “civil rights” support.
They support, for instance, black students being given automatic points in college admission based on their skin color, with white students being forced to meet higher standards in other areas in order to be considered.
They support, for instance, businesses being chosen to receive government contracts based on the skin color or gender of the owner, with businesses owned by white people or by males being denied opportunities or being required to meet higher standards in order to get consideration.
That’s what they call “equal opportunity”.
Most of us call it simply changing who’s being discriminated against.
The reason leftists demand “workplace protections” is simple; they know that they do not offer enough value to a business, or, as in the case of Bonnie Bleskachek, cannot control their sexual urges in the workplace. Instead of dealing with either, they make it impossible for employers to remove them or refuse to hire them.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Do you support the repeal of the civil rights act of 1964 or the similar civil rights laws that came out during the initiail decades after WWII?”
I don’t favor repealing anything of that nature that has already been passed. Given how so many people think — that government has to do everything or it simply won’t get done — I suppose that would generate too much ill will.
I do disagree, however, that the government must be the engine of all meaningful societal change — or even that government does it as well as any other means.
The changes in the way racial minorities and women are viewed have come more from a change of heart — what used to be called “raising consciousness” — than from any magic wand the politicians may have waved. The same, I believe, will prove true for gays.
It is certainly rather perjorative to claim that because one does not favor government intervention to correct a problem, that automatically means one cares nothing about a solution. Sounds like more of the same sort of narrow-mindedness, ETJB, you seek to criticize.
posted by Brian Miller on
if you are going to convice people that civil rights are bad
Hello, Mr. Orwell — you’re the one trying to convince people that “civil rights are bad.”
After all, you’re all in favor of repealing constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, property rights, and freedom of conscience — and replacing them with government mandates and quotas that determine where one may live, work and study based on his race, gender and sexual orientation.
You call such central government planning “civil rights” — honest people refer to them as socialism that violates our civil rights as defined in the Constitution.
Given how so many people think — that government has to do everything or it simply won’t get done
Hammer, nail, head.
Lefties like ETJB love to assume that all the government has to do to end something is pass a law against it, and that overriding the rights of others in order to achieve this sacred vision is a necessary price that has to be paid.
Of course, when righties like ND-30 override HIS civil rights to achieve some OTHER sacred vision (such as “security against terror”), they scream bloody murder — not understanding that the precedent the left created that overrides constitutional rights to achieve some social goal is what allowed the right to do what they’re doing today.
posted by ETJB on
You can lie, mislead and bs all you want.
“They support black students being given automatic points in college admission based on their skin color, with white students being forced to meet higher standards in other areas in order to be considered.”
Nope.
They support, for instance, businesses being chosen to receive government contracts based on the skin color or gender of the owner, with businesses owned by white people or by males being denied opportunities or being required to meet higher standards in order to get consideration.
Nope.
It is a sad day, when LGBT people are on the wrong side of civil rights.
posted by ETJB on
“I don’t favor repealing anything of that nature that has already been passed.”
So, then you oppose telling a business what to do, unless its already been passed and then you oppose adding sexual orientation..equal protection be damned.
Your opposition to civil rights and equal opportunity is perjorative. It is downright insulting.
I never claimed that government is the only solution or that it is always perfect. Yet, you seem content to live in some right-wing libertarian loony land.
posted by ETJB on
Lie 1#: You’re all in favor of repealing constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, property rights, and freedom of conscience.
First of all, these are civil liberties issues, not civil rights issues.
No legal or constitutional right is absolute. Second off all, please show me where (in the constitution) it says that being able to do whatever the hell some one wants with his property or ‘associative’ rights is a right?
posted by Lori Heine on
“Your opposition to civil rights and equal opportunity is perjorative. It is downright insulting.”
Of course, ETJB continues to assume that if the cause of civil rights is to be advanced, it MUST be done by government — and that if one advocates individuals taking responsibility instead of government then one MUST be opposed to civil rights.
What cheap, childish tripe. Malignant narcisissm at its worst.
Prove to us that it can be done no other way, ETJB. Moreover, cite specific proof that government efforts in this regard have worked.
Those efforts were intended to be temporary, stop-gap measures. The very fact that — nearly half a century later — we are being told we STILL need them is pretty decisive proof, in itself, that they don’t work.
My contention is that trying to ram everything through via Mommy Government actually circumvents the process of growth in regard to public respect for civil rights. The fact that, after fifty years, we’re all still supposed to call on Mommy — instead of rely upon our own powers of reason — shows that all government action can do is arrest our development.
In ETJB’s case, perhaps permanently.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You can lie, mislead and bs all you want.
Actually, I’m just quoting you.
Students are given points for a wide range of personal demographics in an effort to create a diverse student body and to provide opportunities for people who have traditionally had the same opportunities due to race, or class.
Demographic characteristics are things over which the student has very little control, if any — i.e. race.
You support granting black students points based solely on their race; therefore, white students must achieve at a higher level in order to garner similar point levels. Similarly, you reward students because their parents were poor and force students whose parents are wealthier to meet higher standards.
That is pure demographic discrimination — and you fully support it.
If it were “equality”, students would be graded and enrolled based on their academic achievements, which they CAN control. But in this case, they are graded and enrolled based purely on their skin color and parents’ wealth — discrimination.
And again:
Giving women or minority owned businesses preferential treatment in certain government contracts is, again, dealing with institutional and historic problems.
You openly support special treatment for women and minorities and discrimination against male or white business owners.
Again, if this were “equality”, businesses would compete based on the quality of their product, not the gender or race of their owners. You, on the other hand, support laws that require gender and race of the owner to be given primary consideration — discrimination.
posted by Brian Miller on
ETJB continues to assume that if the cause of civil rights is to be advanced, it MUST be done by government
He’s a typical socialist. I’ve worked with them many times in the past. They mouth platitudes about diversity, while their own offices are filled with well-to-do lily white liberals like themselves. They talk about the importance of “civil rights,” yet tell homophobic jokes after a few too many drinks on Friday night. It’s nothing new, and certainly nothing interesting.
Moreover, cite specific proof that government efforts in this regard have worked.
Well that’s easy.
Since passage of the Civil Rights Act, all racism has ended.
Since passage of Affirmative Action for Women, all sexism has disappeared.
The passage of laws against poverty have eliminated all poverty.
In fact, the only thing standing against death ending and homophobia being outlawed are hateful right-wingers who stand in the way of this bold initiative with their selfish agenda. Once they’re overcome, government will boldly dispatch with homophobia and death, just like it has completely eliminated racism, sexism and poverty.
*ba dump bump*
posted by ETJB on
“Demographic characteristics are things over which the student has very little control, if any — i.e. race.”
Yes, but they can still benifit from these demographics. People do benifit in this society because of their race and socioeconomic class.
Again, certain University’s are using Affirmative Action, which is different then a basic non-discrimination policy. The latter looks at individual discrimination in the here and now. The former looks at historical discrimination on an individual and institutional level.
The proposed ENDA bill is not about Affirmative Action. The bulk of civil rights laws/EEO are not about Affirmative Action.
“You support granting black students points based solely on their race.”
No, I simply explained the basic difference between AA and EEO polices and why these polices exist. Their is a difference between imperical or normative statements.
“White students must achieve at a higher level in order to garner similar point levels.”
Not necessarily. The enrollment process upheld by the court says that race can be used as one many different factors for the purpose of creating a diverse student body that prepares students for the real world.
The fact that parents are an alumni can be another factor, and it is a big one at many Universities. So is being on a sports team, GPA, or being involved in other activities and projects in high school.
“Students would be graded and enrolled based on their academic achievements.”
Which is an important factor. However, a factor (not the only one) in academic achievement is socioeconomic class.
“You openly support special treatment for women and minorities and discrimination against male or white business owners.”
No, I explained what such polices are, and why they exist in certain circumstances. Whether or not they are good or bad polices is debtable, but affirmative action is different then most civil right laws.
posted by ETJB on
“ETJB continues to assume that if the cause of civil rights is to be advanced, it MUST be done by government.”
Nope. I have (1) Explained a bit about CR vs. AA and why these laws exist. (2) Pointed out the flaws in some people’s arguments and (3) asked if people here want to repeal the civil rights act of 1964?
“He’s a typical socialist.”
Nope. I am not a socialist. It is a typical gimmick of the right, especially right-libertarians to accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being a socialist. Heck, if some one refused to sleep with you, you probably call them a socialist.
“They mouth platitudes about diversity, while their own offices are filled with well-to-do lily white liberals like themselves.”
My current ‘office’ is a small newspaper, and some web page design. I doubt that most of my ‘coworkers’ are well-to-do or white or men or straight.
“They talk about the importance of “civil rights,” yet tell homophobic jokes after a few too many drinks on Friday night.”
I have not told any homophobic jokes after a few too many drinks. I think some one here is projecting their own emotional problems onto others.
I keep waiting for people to show me where in the Constitution it says that people can do what they want with their property or that people have an absolute right to free association.
“Since passage of the Civil Rights Act, all racism has ended.”
No, but things have gotten much better. BTW, the law also deals with religious and sex-based discrimination. You might know that if you bothered to understand the law.
“Since passage of Affirmative Action for Women, all sexism has disappeared.”
No, but things have gotten better.
“The only thing standing against death ending and homophobia being outlawed are hateful right-wingers.”
Nope. Racism and bigotry will still exist and people will keep dying.
Yet, if that is your ‘logic’ to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to oppose the ENDA and openly demand a return to the ‘good old days’, then you should be arguing for the legalization of murder.
After all, the government laws against murder have not made murder magically vanish.
posted by ETJB on
“ETJB continues to assume that if the cause of civil rights is to be advanced, it MUST be done by government.”
You continue to squirm. You oppose ENDA, but refuse to be consistent in your ‘logic’ and oppose the CRA. You refuse to point out where in the constitution it says that civil rights laws are unconstitutional violations of property right.
Honey, selective right-wing libertarianism is not going to work. You cannot oppose ENDA, but then refuse to oppose the CRA.
What would you have replace civil rights? Nothing. That is the right-wing libertarian dogma.
BTW, I have NEVER said that the government is the sole cause or the solution to all of life’s problems. People who tend to argue such thinks are fools.
If you want to change the law, then be consistent about it and make the case that it should be done. You have to prove that it can (should) be done, because you are the one who wants to change things.
Yet, instead of making your case that anarchy is cool, you engage in bumper sticker slogans, personal insults and illogical statements.
Civil rights legislation was not intended to be temporary. That may have been the case with Affirmative Action polices, and they generally have to be.
Your basic contention is a right-wing libertarian one;
(1) That civil rights are evil, immoral and unconstitutional. (2) That the magical free market will some one magically solve everything.
(3) That anyone who disagrees must be a socialist who thinks that government is the solution to all life problems.
Right-wing libertarianism has done plently to arrest the development of many people, especially when it gets used cafateria style.
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, “Honey,” your enlightened, “progressive” condescension is amusing. How you — the supposed philanthrope — jump at the chance to be contemptuous.
Like many leftists, you seem to have an extra bone in your head when it comes to thinking about alternatives to statist hocus-pocus.
You are such a misanthrope you can’t even come down from Olympus long enough to converse with anyone who disagrees with you. So much for enlightenment or progressivism. So much, as a matter of fact, for civil rights. Your contempt for other human beings simply drips from every post.
As my “case” was never that “anarchy is cool” in the first place, putting words in my mouth that I never said is simply more dishonesty on your part.
As to claiming that my “position” is that civil rights are immoral, that is simply childish. You have all the reasoning powers of a five-year-old. It is not my position that civil rights are “immoral” — it is my position that piling endless new legislation on top of the Constitution is unnecessary, as it already protects civil rights. But of course you will distort anything one says that does not parrot your own position.
And I can’t WAIT to find out how my “Right-wing” libertarianism is being used “cafeteria style.” Surely you will enlighten me.
The same endless tinkering with the Constitution that might result in expanded civil rights — as we have learned in the past few years — could also be used to relegate gays to permanent second-class citizenship. But of course it is the Left — those who think like ETJB — who opened the door for that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The proposed ENDA bill is not about Affirmative Action. The bulk of civil rights laws/EEO are not about Affirmative Action.
Wrong. Affirmative action is based SPECIFICALLY on civil rights laws. It wouldn’t be legal without them.
If you want to change the law, then be consistent about it and make the case that it should be done.
This from the person who is claiming he supports “equality”, but supports government-sponsored discrimination against white and male business owners and students and preferential treatment for minorities. He openly states that more-qualified white students should be passed over in favor of less-qualified black students and that less-qualified minority-owned businesses should be awarded contracts over more-qualified white-owned businesses, all in the name of “diversity” — because it’s more important to be “diverse” than it is to be qualified or to perform well.
posted by ETJB on
“Affirmative action is based SPECIFICALLY on civil rights laws. It wouldn’t be legal without them.”
Again, basic civil rights (i.e. ENDA) deal with individual discrimination in the here and now. That is how must civil rights laws exist, and ENDA specifically prohibits AA.
Affirmative Action is designed to address historic discrimination (mostly racial) in certain circumstances and for a specific peroid of time. Affirmative Action has a different set of principles then basic civil rights, and thus brings up different constitutional issues.
“Supports…”
Again, I am explaing the difference between Affirmative Action polices and basic civil rights polices. Some people here wish to put them in the same box, when they are different entities all together.
I do not seem to recall stating tha I personally agree or disagree with Affirmative Action polices. However, people who critize AA or civil rights laws should get their facts straight.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Again, I am explaing the difference between Affirmative Action polices and basic civil rights polices.”
That’s because, once the government has taken it upon itself to tell private employers whom they can hire and not fire, affirmative action violates their civil rights. To call such a thing “a basic civil rights policy” is insane. To “lump it together” with affirmative action is simply being honest.
As I mentioned once before, legislation that might do some real good, without violating anyone’s civil rights, would be some sort of “scarlet letter law.”
Employers — supposedly acting out of personal principle, and citing said principle as their reason for not employing certain sorts of people — should not feel they need to hide this. Greater light for the consumer and for those seeking jobs would violate no one’s rights. Employers do not have the right to be hypocritical by stating “principle” in hiring and firing, but then trying to hide and double-talk about it when publicly confronted with their bigotry.
A scarlet letter law would allow them the “right” to exercise their bigotry — as long as they were willing to do so publicly, in a way that protected both employees and consumers.
Would this have an automatic, magic-wand effect on everybody? Of course not. So it wouldn’t be fast enough, or draconian enough, for the ETJB’s of the world. But it would protect the civil rights of employers (including gay employers — and this would be the ONLY way to do this) much better than would laws forcing people to hire those they do not wish to employ, or keeping them from firing them.
In the long run, expecting people to act decently and conduct themselves like grown-ups is always the best policy. It may take longer, but it’s well worth it, because that’s the way people grow up. In the meantime, a scarlet letter law would, at the very least, protect us from the bigots we otherwise might not know were there.
posted by Lori Heine on
One correction. In the second paragraph of my previous post, I said “affirmative action” twice. The first time, I meant to say “laws regulating employment.” I need to rectify this before the ETJB’s have a tantrum-fest. Not that it will probably do much good.
posted by ETJB on
“Once the government has taken it upon itself to tell private employers whom they can hire and not fire, affirmative action violates their civil rights.”
Really? Please point out where in the Constitution it says so? Can you point to a law? I keep asking this question, and none you right-wing libertarian have an answer?
“To call such a thing “a basic civil rights policy” is insane.”
In fact, I said that affirmative action is DIFFERENT from basic civil rights. To lump the two together is being intellectual honest.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Once the government has taken it upon itself to tell private employers whom they can hire and not fire, affirmative action violates their civil rights.”
ETJB, in my very next post I corrected that. As I said, I did not intend to say “affirmative action” there.
Before you impugn anyone else’s intellectual honesty, you’d better see to your own.
posted by ETJB on
“Before you impugn anyone else’s intellectual honesty, you’d better see to your own.”
Have you found in the part in the U.S. Constitution where it says that civil rights are unconstitutional and that people can do whatever they want with their own property? Right-wing libertarians keep making the claim, but refuse to back it up.
EEO polices and AA are different. I am glad that you have finally agreed on this fact. Perhaps now you will stop opposing Civil rights, by confusing them with AA.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, ETJB, you’ve turned dishonesty into such an art form, you really ought to run for president. Multiple Choice Mitt’s got nothing on you.
First you deliberately ignore an attempted correction of a post so you can smear me, and then — when it is called to your attention what a gigantic fool you’ve just made of yourself — you try to slither out of it with cutesy-pie spin.
There may be differences between EEO and AA, but both are still wrong. It was wrong all those hundreds of years when men used their own form of AA against women and whites used it against blacks. It is STILL wrong now. Simply turning around who does it to whom does nothing to make it right.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Sometimes trite little sayings are true.
Civil rights are guaranteed under the Constitution — but your civil rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. If you’re trying to say that one person has the “civil right” to be hired — and never fired — by another, you are either lying or you are just plain nuts.
There, I backed it up. I’m sure your moronic, John Wayne taunts work on someone. They don’t work on me.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
Your personal attacks aside, you still have not been able to show me were in the U.S. Constitution civil rights laws violate people’s rights. Just admit that you are wrong, so I can do not little Irish jig.
You said: “First you deliberately ignore an attempted correction of a post so you can smear me.”
No, I said “EEO polices and AA are different. I am glad that you have finally agreed on this fact.”
You said: There may be differences between EEO and AA, but both are still wrong.
Why? They are certainly not unconstitutuional and you failed to explain the consequences of returning to a pre-1964 America.
“It was wrong all those hundreds of years when men used their own form of AA against women and whites used it against blacks.”
Well, that was not Affirmative Action. It was a denial of equal treatment/opportunity, something that civil rights legislation addresses. Civil rights legislation that you, and libertarians oppose.
“Civil rights are guaranteed under the Constitution.”
Really? Point it out. Well, after you point out that civil rights also violate the Constitution.
Yes, certain civil liberties are protected and certain equal protection issues. However, civil rights come from enacted, as opposed to constitutional law.
“Your civil rights end where mine begin, and vice versa.”
Again, you fail to point out where it says Civil Rights are unconstitutional or where it says that they violate ‘property rights’.
posted by Lori Heine on
Since I never said that civil rights were “unconstitutional,” I’m certainly not going to try to “point out” where it says that. For ETJB even to claim I ever said such a thing is absurd. It’s like claiming I said that water isn’t wet.
At this point, words I never said are simply being attributed to me. That is rank dishonesty. You can call it whatever you like.
There are any number of great books on the libertarian philosophy. Perhaps the best I could recommend would be “Libertarianism: A Primer” by David Boaz, or “What it Means to be a Libertarian,” by Charles Murray. Most of the people who post here understand what libertarianism is — and what it isn’t. They do not need a full refresher course, so I have no intention of giving one.
What is “loony,” ETJB, is all the crazy stuff people like you claim that libertarians believe. You damage any credibility you might otherwise have because you make such a hash out of our ideas. You’re either very dishonest, have a real cogitational disability or just plain don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
You have several times stated that civil rights legislation should be opposed/repealed because it violates the rights of the employer.
Other right-wing Libertarians have made similar arguments. Why it is unconstitutional/bad/evil/immoral;
(1) “When bigots are denied the “right” to practice their bigotry…” Or “your civil rights end where mine begin.”
(2) It will lead to quotas.
Well, “quotas” is an argument against AA and you seem to realize that AA and civil rights are different. So, we are now left with your first argument.
What constitutional rights are being violated? Well, as a right-wing libertarian you probably would say; property and associative.
Either way, please explain what rights are being violated. Point to a constitutional provision or a law.
“There are any number of great books on the libertarian philosophy.”
I familiar with Right-wing Libertarianism, and have several libertarian friends. Heck, I even wrote a column about the philosophy for coming out month.
Such a philosophy opposes EEO, AA and civil rights laws for the reasons I stated above (property and assoicative rights).
If these are not your reasons, then please explain how you differ from the philosophy you seem to be advocating.
I have read Boaz’s (included the one he edited) and Murray’s.
I have also worked with many third party people on election law reform issues.
Right-wing Libertarianism DOES seek to dismantle EEO, civil rights and AA. This is not some “loony” lie, but a fact.
I have studied this philosophy, interacted with many of its followers and understand what it does believe and why.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
As far as some one who does not know that they are talking about, let us review;
(1) Civil rights are not guaranteed under the Constitution, certain civil liberites are, and the constitution gives Congress the power to enact civil rights laws.
(2) I do not recall stating that I was a leftist, in fact I would consider myself to be a libertarian.
(3) I am very open to thinking/talking about alternatives to public policy, but people who propose alternatives need to be willling to seriously address the issues and not expect to preach to the choir.
(4) “So much, as a matter of fact, for civil rights.” Oh, you mean the civil rights that you oppose and want to abolish? Or are you confusing civil rights with civil liberties? Even then, I have not trampbled on your 1st Amendment right.
(5) Libertarianism is historically connected to anarchy.
(6) “It is my position that piling endless new legislation on top of the Constitution is unnecessary.” — Most people who actually dealt with discrimination wouuld disagree with you. Do you intent to persuade them otherwise with personal attacks and one-liners?
(7) The Libertarianism that you promote is right-wing. It is a form of the philosophy that has come to dominate the party and its interest groups. You can not state that we should keep certain civil rights laws, and oppose others and be a libertarian.
(8) “The same endless tinkering with the Constitution..” How are civil rights laws tinkering with the Constitution?
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, if you indeed have read the books I recommended, then you didn’t pay much attention to what they said.
Your first error is in believing that the Constitution itself gives us rights. All the Constitution does, as a matter of fact, is fix limits upon the government’s power. Our rights — according to the reasoning of the Founders — existed long before any government came into being.
We began weakening the Constitution by treating it as if it, indeed, conferred actual rights upon us — as if these rights were not already ours to begin with. I do not believe we need to keep piling on more laws, in general, to “give” people rights that, in fact, they already have.
My quarrel is not over whether we have these rights. It is over whether we need political quacks to play messiah by pretending to bestow those rights upon us.
The real task at hand is to keep judges from interpreting the Constitution in a manner that robs people of the rights THEY ALREADY POSSESS. No politician with a Jesus complex can “give” me rights that I already have.
posted by ETJB on
Not only do I own the books I have mentioned, but I read a few more. I am well aware of what Libertarianism does and does not believe.
You said: Your first error is in believing that the Constitution itself gives us rights.
Well, the United States Constitution does give us rights (civil liberties) and limits the power of the government.
This is why the founding fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution to define and protect a set of liberties. This is why it was amended.
The Declaration of Independence is (1) not a legal document. (2) Its authors were not really our founding fathers. (3) Even if we include both the D of I and the US Const, none of these men were right-wing libertarians.
You said: We began weakening the Constitution by treating it as if it, indeed, conferred actual rights upon us — as if these rights were not already ours to begin with.
So, where do our rights come from, and who defines them? Ah, let me guess; whatever you say is a right, must be a right, right?
You said: I do not believe we need to keep piling on more laws, in general, to “give” people rights that, in fact, they already have.
* (1) Laws (enacted/constitutional) are needed to protect people’s rights, unless you are an true anarchist.
* (2) Civil rights laws needed to be enacted, or else they do not exist.
You said: My quarrel is not over whether we have these rights.
Um, actually it is. If you are a right-wing Libertarian, then you believe that – somwhow – civil rights laws violate the property and associate rights of the individual. That is certainly the argument put forth by the authors that you cited to me.
You said: The real task at hand is to keep judges from interpreting the Constitution in a manner that robs people of the rights THEY ALREADY POSSESS.
Again, where in the Constitution does it say that Civil Rights laws violate people’s rights? Otherwise what basis are you using to decide when a judge or a law ‘violates’ someone’s rights, other then it was said by the ‘God’ of Ayn Rand, Mary Ruwart, Charles Murrary, David Boaz?
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, if you have read the books you claim, then you have a definite problem in reading for comprehension.
“So, where do our rights come from, and who defines them?”
They come, as Jefferson wrote, from “Nature” or “Nature’s God.” They are also, as Jefferson wrote, “self-evident.” It is when we start trying to place our own demands on people, via the “gimme” state, that rights begin to conflict with one another.
As for who defines them, if they are defined as the self-evident right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they do not conflict. It is only when we start demanding to be given things (like jobs) by others that rights appear to conflict. You believe that others have the obligation to give you a job. Thus would you limit their right to hire whom they choose.
“Well, the United States Constitution does give us rights (civil liberties) and limits the power of the government.”
In fact, it does the latter. It does not do the former. Rights, according to the understanding of the Founders who authored the Constitution, derive from natural law. Or in other words, as already stated, from “Nature” or “Nature’s God.”
You understand nothing of the entire mindset of the Enlightenment. I could recommend you read any number of books, but of course you would claim that you have already read them.
If so, it doesn’t seem to have profited you in the slightest.
posted by ETJB on
You said: They [our rights] come, as Jefferson wrote, from “Nature” or “Nature’s God.”
(1) Jefferson was not a Libertarian. (2) He was not really a founding father. (3) You going to allow a dead guy from the 18th century decide what all our rights are? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Who decides what Thomas Jefferson “really” thought about “X”?
We certainly cannot ask him. Why, the right-wing libertarians, of coarse.
Jefferson certainly did not say that private property rights were absolute, nor did he comment about civil right laws; certain folk were not deemed to be human beings during his lifetime (i.e. blacks, Indians, gays, women)
You said: You believe that others have the obligation to give you a job. Thus would you limit their right to hire whom they choose.
Why? Well, Civil rights legislation did not come up in that centuray, because women and minorites were not seen as equal human beings.
No, I believe in equal opportunity and civil rights. Again, Thomas Jefferson never said that an employer had the right to hire whom they chose.
The right-wing libertarian notion that the government could not regulate private property and free enterprise did not come from Thomas Jefferson or even Adam Smith.
You said: Rights, according to the understanding of the Founders who authored the Constitution, derive from natural law.
Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father. He was — if I recall — in France when the Constitution was written.
The men who wrote the Constitution had many different and competing beliefs, and the end result was a COMPROMISE.
Yet, the fact that many men (and a few women) of the Age of Enlightenment believed that human rights came from “Nature’s God”, how does that prove your assertion that the government can not regulate private property or the free market?
Broadly speaking, the Age of Enlightenment was the rise of “classical liberalism”. They were the original libertarians (along with the anarchists and the socialist-libertarians).
Left-Libertarianism does not believe that private property rights are absolute. It does not believe that a business owner can do whatever he wants.
What you are advocating is right-libertarianism. I am still waiting; if the mind of Thomas Jefferson is suppose to rule America, what did he say about civil rights laws that back up your claim?
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, there is no such thing as “Left” libertarianism or “Right” libertarianism. Again, you are sadly confused. Left and Right are statist terms, based upon the presupposition that government should control SOME part of our lives. Those on the Left merely disagree with those on the Right about which areas of our lives the government ought to regulate.
Again the old razzle-dazzle about Jefferson. It would, first of all, surprise most historians to learn that Jefferson “was not a founding father.” According to the term as it has been used since the very founding of this country, he has always been understood to have been one of its founders.
“Nature’s God” was a term merely indicating that even those who do not believe in God believe in nature. Our rights either came from God, or they came from nature. Only someone who’s REALLY determined to pick nits and split hairs (someone like yourself) is going to have a problem with what was really a very intelligent and fair-minded attempt to include everyone’s understanding of the ultimate.
Jefferson was not a “libertarian” because in those days they did not use that term. The term he would have applied to himself was “liberal,” which was what libertarians originally called themselves — until the word “liberal” was hijacked by nanny-statists like you.
What the classical liberal — or libertarian — understanding asserts is that if we don’t have property rights, then we have no human rights at all. If nothing else, we wouldn’t even have the right to the ground upon which we stand, or to the very air we breathe. It all begins with a right to property — a right, incidentally, that statists would deny not only to the richest, but even to the very poor.
Property rights are the basis upon which even the most elemental civil rights depend. Each of us is understood to own our own body, our own life and our very self. It is from this foundation that what you so ignorantly disparage as “property rights” are based — not merely upon the right of Little Lord Fauntleroy to own his mansion or his yacht.
Your ignorance is abysmal. And if you’ve ever read anything, you sure as hell didn’t understand it. God help this country if there really are too many damn fools in it who think like you.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
Left-libertarianism DOES exist and was the original form of libertarianism. Their is an extensive amount of liteature and research on the subject. It includes the classical liberalism, anarchists, geo-libertarians and certain socialists.
Right-Libertarianism is heavily influenced by such things as the Cold War and Ayn Rand. This is what dominates the LP and many libertarian interest groups.
BTW, the ‘Center-Libertarianism’ is basically the culture of “South Park” and its impact it will have on politics. “Left” and “Right” come largely from the Age of Enlightenment, especially the French Revolution.
Yet, little of this gets to the central point; Your opposition to Civil Rights laws based on the alledged “right” of a property owner-businessman to do whatever he wants with his property.
Well, you basically conceeded that such a right is not found in the Constitution (or cannot find where it is). Now, you taken to quoting from Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Jefferson did not write the U.S. Constitution and was not in the nation at the time. That is how many historians judge who are ‘founding fathers’ are and are not. Yet, even if you expand the term to include the men who were involved with both the DOI and the USCON, that still does not answer the question.
You said: “Our rights either came from God, or they came from nature.”
Well, that is certainally the social contract theory. But who gets to define what these rights are, and where does it say that a property owner…
Thomas Jefferson wrote many wonderful liberal ideas, but he was not especially adapt at practing what the preached. Yet, who gets to define what these rights are, and where does it say that a property owner…
Thomas Jefferson would not have stated that ‘property rights’ means being able to do whatever a man wants with his property. Likewise Adam Smith did not claim that all business should be left unregulated. Such notions came
much latter from the right-libertarianism.
Are you going to:
* Point to where in the U.S. Constitution it says, Civil Rights are bad?
* Offer some evidence that Thomas Jefferson believed in the right-libertarian’s defintion of property rights?
If not, then please tell me so that I can do my little Irish jig.
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, you are a very juvenile and tiring little person.
Let’s try it again, from the top. As I never said either that civil rights were bad, or that the Constitution said anywhere that civil rights were bad, of course I’m not going to point to anywhere in the Constitution that says that. You have merely put your own words in my mouth, thereby setting up a straw-man argument supposedly requiring me to prove something I never said in the first place. You are an exceptionally dishonest person.
And of course you give the usual razzmatazz about Thomas Jefferson. My argument does not depend upon Jefferson’s sterling character, or upon whether you do or do not accept him as one of the founders of this country.
The idea of individual ownership of one’s person can be found in many Enlightenment and post-Enlightment writings.
As far as doing whatever one wants with one’s property, one may not violate the rights of others. But as you have no inherent right to demand that anyone else hire you, you are attempting to usurp their right to run their enterprise as they see fit.
What you are evidently too myopic to understand is that homophobic “Christians” are now trying to force employers to hire them. They are using company time and space to harass gays and lesbians. And they are claiming they’ve got an unalienable “right” to do so. Our quest for ironclad workplace protection is backfiring on us — as any reasonable person could have expected.
As to the much-demonized Ayn Rand, I’ve never particularly been a fan of hers. As a Christian, I disagree with much of what she said. I consider her a social darwinist, and many of her opinions to have been overly harsh. If you want to beat me over the head with somebody, you’d better find someone other than Ayn Rand to do it with.
I hope you enjoy your little Irish jig. You’ll do one anyway, regardless of what I do or do not say. You have no understanding of either the Constitution or the thought processes that led up to the founding of this country. It is your mentality that would have been alien to Thomas Jefferson, or to anyone else who had a hand in founding this country.
posted by ETJB on
Lori;
(1) You did say that civil rights were bad. You have spent post after post trying to persuade me that they somehow violate the rights of the business owner. In fact, it is basic right-wing Libertarianism to oppose civil rights laws.
(2) When I ask you where does it say that a business owner has such rights, you decline to answer. You squirm, you dodge the issue and engage in personal attacks. Finally you said that it comes from Thomas Jefferson.
(3) Yet, classical liberalism (LEFT LIBERTARIANISM) did not state that the government could not regulate property or a business. Heck, the major free market guru, Adam Smith, would loath such right-wing libertarian notions.
(4) Now it seems that you want to argue that Civil rights violate the rights of a business owner, but not as rights are defined by our Constitution or classical liberalism.
(5) “Post-Enlightenment” (or the abandonment of enlightenment) is a good statement on right-wing libertarianism.
For it is only in right-wing libertarianism that you will find this notion that civil rights violate a business
owners ‘rights’. You will not find it in Left Libertarianism.
Basically, you insist that a right exists, because you and a handful of right-wing libertarian say so. How is that too different from Karl Marx and his buddies eroding liberal democracy for their own version of ‘rights’?
You are an incredibly dishonest person. You deny making statements, that you did make. You invoke a ‘right’ based on the people and documents that do not support such a right. You claim to know what the Constitution and founding fathers wanted, but them keep demonstrating that you know little about either.
You are a fraud.
posted by Lori Heine on
ETJB, you are a liar. You are an outright liar as well as a fraud.
No one has an absolute “civil right” to be employed — upon their demand — by anybody else. Your first lie, in your latest post, is that (as you have done all along) you try to pass it off as some sort of civil right.
I did not “decline to answer” where “it says” a businessowner has that right. I tried to get you to grasp the basics of how the Constitution was written. It limits government powers — it does not enumerate every right under the sun for everybody from the dogcatcher to the Secretary of State.
I don’t know whether you’re just pretending you’re stupid, or whether you really are. Nor, any longer, do I care.
Quote Adam Smith — don’t just drag his name into your petty little squabble. Specifics, please.
Your whole “Right-Wing” versus “Left-Wing” Libertarianism nonsense is really getting tiresome. You keep desperately plastering cheap labels all over everybody, hoping that they’ll stick. It’s a tactic to which people who can’t think commonly resort.
“‘Post-Enlightenment’ (or the abandonment of enlightenment) is a good statement on right-wing libertarianism.”
— There’s but one example of this nasty little habit of yours. Well, nanny-nanny boo-boo, Poopyhead.
For crying out loud, grow up.
“Basically, you insist that a right exists, because you and a handful of right-wing libertarian say so.”
No, I insist that it exists because I have read the Constitution and understand how it works. You are pulling imaginary “rights” out of your ass and can’t back them up with anything.
“You invoke a ‘right’ based on the people and documents that do not support such a right.”
You know, ETJB, you might try actually reading the Constitution sometime. Then you’d know what it says and what it doesn’t.
“You are an incredibly dishonest person.”
“You are a fraud.”
Well, neener-neener!
You are a very childish person. Go play with your crayons and stop boring the grownups.
posted by Lori Heine on
To anyone else who hasn’t grown totally tired of the whole argument, I’d suggest you go back over the threads on which ETJB and I have gone back and forth and revisit its evolution. Thus will the truth be revealed.
I haven’t had to do any squirming, because my position throughout has remained the same. One person’s rights end where another’s begin. No person has the right to demand a job from another. If a gay worker can demand a job from a homophobic straight, then a homophobic straight can demand one from a gay. It is just that simple.
Methinks, ETJB, that you do protest too much. You accuse me of lying, squirming and the like — but here, once again, is the same argument I have been making all along. And none of your babbling about “Left” or “Right” can change that one iota.
Draft Thomas Jefferson, draft Adam Smith, draft Ayn Rand or whoever. I repeat (once again) what I’ve said all along. The burden of dissent is upon you.
Happy jigging!