Dallas May Make History, Not that there's anything wrong with that

National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

http://www.naafa.org/

 

In all fairness, I haven't seen any evidence except the GAO report which stated 2-3% of gays get discriminated at work in the states they had data on. I know I've personally seen more people get fired for not dressing a certain way to work than 2%. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it obviously does and should stop, but it isn't like there's some gargantuan pile of stuff that totally blows pgab's post out of the water.

I think you have to aceept it for what it is. pgab has stated that there shouldn't be any discrimination toowards gays, he simply doesnt like people comparing the gay movement to the blacks movement. Mostly his argument is because of the magnitude of things that blacks went through, a viewpoint which you seemingly agree with via your "yayyy blacks win" comment.

he agrees with you that gays shouldn't be discriminated against. What you're both doing right now is pushing each other further away from the middle ground that you share.

 

i need to enroll in that. been a while since i played ball lol

 

We already had The Fonz and George Jefferson, there is no need to bring Rerun into this.

 

So Supreme Court rulings taking basic human rights away from gays doesn't count as evidence. You need a higher percentage of gays bringing lawsuits against theit employers to prove that.

In a 2000 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States said it was okay for the Boy Scouts, a nationwide organization with roots in most cities in this country, to discriminate against gays in it's hiring practices. Can you imagine what would happen in this country if the same decision was reached re: blacks? It's incredible to think such a thing could happen in this day and age- but why does it? Because this discrimination is acceptable to many, many americans. It would appear that neither you nor pgabriel are aware that many powerful Republicans will pro-actively fight not just against marraige, but against the extension of hate crime law and federal discrimination law. And when you're made aware of it, it seems you don't care that much. There don't seem to be a high enough amount of lawsuits, lynchings, or killings going on to confirm that it's a bad problem.

I guess I'm looking at this as black and white- is it a civil rights issue or not? It seems pretty clear that it is. pgabriel was mistaken in both thinking that gays have federal protection in anti-discrimination law and that they had equal protection under hate crimes. Despite this, it's "just not that big an issue." Part of me finds this hypocritical, because if the same thing happened to blacks today it appears that pgab would find that far more disturbing.

Saying that gays don't need the protection because it isn't that bad a problem just confirms how bad it is. That's exactly how white people who are ignorant about racism feel. Gays are denied basic human rights, basic equal protection under law, right now, in 2007, by the federal law of the United States. We're not just talking about marriage here- we're talking about holding a job and having a home. And there are many in power right now, and many voters who will fight to keep it that way or make it worse. This is an outrage.

You ask me "where's the outrage?" And I'm saying, the outrage is that you aren't outraged.

For me, treating the issue in manner of degrees does not equate with the statement that gay rights are not civil rights, which is what pgabriel has stated, which got this started, and which he has not retracted despite evidence otherwise.

1) Equal opportunity to employment and housing is a civil right. A human right.
2) Gays are not extended federal protection against discrimination in employment and housing in the United States.
3) Gays face a battle fought in the hearts and minds of Americans, and in the courtrooms, to win these rights- not unlike blacks have in the past, and continue to.

That blacks were enslaved, that the prejudice, violence, and oppression they have faced is more pervasive and more punishing, does not negate the fact that the fight for gay rights and equal treatment under law is indeed a civil rights issue. I take comfort that I share company in Kendra Colton King and the head of the NAACP in thinking this.

Some guys get annoyed with any comparison between the two- Another Brother did that a lot, and that annoyed me. It's as if some black American men feel threatened if any minority that dares to suggest they face oppression also. It's as if they are going to lose something if another minority gets recognition for it. It seems they grudge giving any other minority credit, lest they lose some. The Victimhood Olympics is a phrase I posted in a thread with Another Brother. I picture in my mind some big throwdown in mud pits in the Astrodome: "It's the blacks versus the jews in a 'who has been shat upon most in history' SHOWDOWN!!!! SLAVERY VERSUS HOLOCAUST!!!! WHO WILL COME OUT ON TOP??!!?!"

What's sad is those who have suffered from oppression should feel compassion and give support to others who face the same. When pgabriel says he's doesn't like comparisons between the struggles of the two groups it shows that it is competitive instead of supportive. I disagree with this stance. So do many important leaders of the movement for black rights.

You're right. We have a ton of middle ground and I am pushing away from that. Maybe I'm being too confrontational. This issue bugs me. I apologize if I've been too rude to you and pgabriel.

 

My question is why is there the need to be vocal about it "not being a big deal." Look, you know as well as I do that stats are worthless when it comes to gays and lesbians because most people hide their sexual identity and thus all stats become underreported.

But this debate is just silly. Who cares who had it worse? Racial minorities in this country got jacked by the government and society for hundreds of years and finally the country woke up and extended legal protection to them.

Now the government has systematically refused to extend protection to gays. There are parallels and it makes more sense to focus on those parallels instead of focusing on the differences between the movements in the 60s and the gay rights movements today. And what's worse is that it almost seems hypocritical. Racial minorities should be the last people to downplay anything considering the systematic abuse and discrimination they faced for years. I'm a minority but too young to really know any of the stuff that happened but we can all agree it was bad.

And despite experiencing that discrimination, why is there the need to now throw out a game of comparison or say who has it worse. Instead, recognize the similarities and fight together. I pointed out who there are black gay people or black gay women. What about their experiences? You have people who are at the intersection of multiple modes of oppression and this stupid bickering just means excluding their experiences and excluding their voices from the national discourse on race, gender, and sexuality.

Enough's enough. Racial minorities have had it tough in the past, gay people have it tough now. NO ONE cares who had it worse, it just sucks for both and leave it at that.

 

I don't know. I do know that you are in violation of the law if you are turning people down due to race. I'm sure it happens, but who knows really.

But one thing is for sure, you will not violate a federal law if you openly discriminate against gays in the work place. This is true for most state laws, and probably most municipalities and many many companies.

 

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear or see it, i guess it didn't happen right?

There is no federal protection for gay rights or discrimination in the workplace. There have been attempts to push it through, but it's been heavily opposed on a federal level. As stated, most states (nearly 2/3) do not protect gays in the workplace.

It's up to cooperations and cities to protect gays.

 

Okay, good point. I asked. I'm sorry.

 

that's a very honest post.

 

What does that even mean? The current mayor of the exact same city is black.

Gays do not enjoy equal protection under the law. As such they are victims of discrimination. Why can't you just say that that sucks and you hope it changes instead of going on and on about how it's no big deal?

And to RocketRiver, who posted pages back about how gays have the same marriage rights as straights since both can marry the opposite sex, I think it was about 40 years ago that interracial marriage became totally legal in the US. Before that, I guess you would have said, "No problem! Everyone has the same right to marry within his race!"

Coretta Scott King wasn't the only civil rights leader that saw the parallel between the two movements. Al Sharpton, in a debate in 2004, said that gay marriage was a matter of civil rights and that we had resolved as a country not to put civil rights to a state by state vote.

I would never argue that gays and lesbians have been through anything as horrible as slavery, but I agree with whomever likened this irrelevant argument about who's had it worse to some sort of victim olympics. In fact, it was learning about this country's horrible history of discrimination against blacks way back when I was a small kid at a predominantly black school that made me so sensitive to the plight of gays and lesbians. It seriously blows my freaking mind that any class of people that has experienced unequal treatment and discrimination would not rally to the cause of another class experiencing some form of same.

 

why do you feel it diminishes the significance of the civil rights movement? If anything it validates it more.

The civil rights movement isn't over. Nor is it owned by one group or another. Nor has it be limited in scope to just the U.S. or the last 100 years.

It's a struggle of humanity. Against colonialism, against slavery, against predujice and pigeon-holing. It started long ago. Thoreau introduced some powerful ideas on civil disobedience, which brought the movement into a modern context that was first used in mass scale by Gandhi, then MLK and Mandela, and even today by protesters against everything from abortion to war.

African Americans certainly had it bad for sure - but they weren't alone in their struggle. Women fought hard to get the right to vote, here and abroad. And as a minority I still want to be judged by who I am as opposed to simply what I can not control.

Solidarity with gays doesn't diminish civil rights, in empowers it. It increases the numbers who seek equality. Also, gays are often found in influential areas - in academia and the arts/fashion. Why reject them from sharing in your cause???

Think about this....how can we clamour against the injustices against one group and not the other?

Also, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. It's no more so then religion, and you are definitely not allowed to discriminate against someone for thier religious beliefs.

Frankly, I also don't think a person should be fired for being fat unless it impacts their job performance. That's the whole point. That people's differences (so long as they are legal and non-disruptive) shouldn't count for squat.

 

Wait - this isn't true. There are tons of people that don't enjoy equal protection under the law - and it doesn't mean they are all victims of discrimination. Not to say that gas aren't victims of it, but that's not determined based on whether they have rights coded into the law like gender and race do.

Tall people, short people, (both are genetic and not a choice) and plenty of other groups don't have equal protection under the law, but we don't argue that they are all victims of discrimination.

Because the thread is about whether the two movements are analagous or whatever, and depth and breadth of discrimination is relevant to that. I would assume everyone here already agrees with your statement that it sucks and hope it changes. That's irrelevant to the conversation.

 

First, apologies to pgabriel. I had missed the post where you acknowledged you were wrong about hate crime and employment discrimination laws and said you wished it were different.

Call me a prude, but I'd be for laws that punished discriminatory hiring, housing, marriage, adoption or military service practices for giants and dwarves too, except in cases where height affected the ability to properly perform a job.

The thread became about that because some people insisted on comparing depth and breadth. The issue that triggered it was that prominent members of one class of people that had experienced discrimination were insensitive to, or even supportive of, discrimination against another class. The fact that two groups have suffered discrimination is enough to prove parallels or an analagous relationship. Both have been denied employment, housing and the freedom to marry whomever they loved. There are differences of course, but one of the main differences that remains is that it is no longer legal to refuse to hire a black guy.

 

NewYorker:

Nice post. It makes me crazy to give you props since you're usually so damn annoying, but props where due.

Nolen:

You've been outstanding in this thread. I don't even need to be here. You're saying everything I'd want to say.

 

Sorry for the late response. Gays aren't a race or ethnicity, but I think they're identified as a minority as long as society bars and discriminates against them from positions where they can be just as skilled or qualified as the next person.