HSLDA - new low - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 03:35 AM
 
Lillian J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa49 View Post
What is with this anti-gay movement lately. It seems that hatred is in full-force right now.
I think it has to do with it being a time of heavy stresses of all sorts - people tend to look for scapegoats when they're in pain of their own. It's just so strange that hatred is so widely accepted though - you'd think it would be something people would be self-conscious about.

- Lillian
Lillian J is offline  
#32 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 11:40 AM
 
Rivka5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Charis, I notice that you've never posted anything to MDC except for your posts in this thread. Are you interested in being part of the community here, or just coming in to promote your particular political agenda?

Alexandra 4.11.05 and Colin 2.9.09. Click on my name to visit my homeschooling blog.
Rivka5 is offline  
#33 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 11:48 AM
 
lisarussell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere pink
Posts: 1,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it's stupid, and no business of HSLDA's but as an employer, I hate the idea that I'd be forced to hire someone I didn't want to- regardless of the reason. employment should be based on the merits of the individual, no matter who they are.
lisarussell is offline  
#34 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 12:22 PM
 
LovemyBoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Beautiful Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,696
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I am a loving, joyful human being. I care for all people. I simply prefer to keep the government out of my business, personal and otherwise. More laws, more red tape, less freedom. You can pretend that this law will help a certain group, but it won’t, it will only line the pockets of lawyers.
Do you feel the same way about any equal protection laws - you feel businesses should be able to discriminate against anyone, racial minorities, women, Pagans, the disabled, single parents, anyone for any reason?

What about the government? Should state and federal employers be allowed the same "freedom of choice"?
LovemyBoo is offline  
#35 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 12:43 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm concerned about how such laws are going to be enforced.

For instance, while it's fine to give a guideline that business owners shouldn't discriminate according to sexual preference in hiring -- how do you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is (or isn't) happening?

What if someone has the perfect resume, more perfect than anyone else's -- but I, the business owner, just happen to click really well with one of the other applicants. I feel this applicant has qualities and a vision that will really help my business, and the lack of training or experience can be easily made up (in my opinion).

If I'm a private business owner -- not government-funded -- shouldn't it be at my discretion whether I choose someone based on how we get along in the interview, rather than based on that person's previous education and experience?

The rough thing is that for the other legally-protected groups, you can usually tell at the interview if the most-qualified-on-paper person is in one of these groups. So if the most qualified person happens to be from a racial minority, but you happen to like another applicant better -- well, you're probably still going to feel legally forced to go with the person who's better on paper.

If you decide to go with the person that your hunches are telling you is the better person for your company, chances are you're going to fabricate something to document WHY the person you chose is more qualified, even though s/he's not, just to cover your butt in case of a suit later.

But with sexual orientation -- you may have NO IDEA of the sexual preference of the most qualified person, who you're passing over in favor of the one you like better. I guess it'll just pressure business-owners to get really good at creating paper-trails to justify each and every choice.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#36 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 12:46 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't see it helping, only hurting.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#37 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 01:49 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Z View Post
Christian schools/co-ops/groups would not be able to forbid hiring "the gays" to teach their kids. Because, ya know, we have to protect our kids from catching "the gay".
Again, if someone sets up a private school, or a church for that matter, shouldn't that person be able to hire individuals who support the statement of beliefs of his/her organization?

Let's approach this in a different way: suppose you are paying thousands of dollars a year to send your children to a private, secular school that has the stated mission of helping students appreciate diversity, all kinds of diversity.

What if you found out your child's math teacher was a member of a racial supremacist group? Or even a Christian fundamentalist group that's actively involved in fighting causes you believe in, like gay rights ... oh, and suppose you and your children even saw this teacher out picketing your local Family Planning clinic?

I realize none of these activities would preclude someone being able to teach in the public school system (well, maybe being part of a racial-supremacist group would, I'm not sure) --

But do you also feel that after you pay good money to send your child to a school that's free from bigotry and intolerance, you still have no right to speak up against a teacher who you perceive as bigoted and intolerant, even if he is really good at teaching math, and even if (as far as you know) he never expresses his views on abortion and gay rights to the students?

I realize you're saying, "Of course any parent has a right to speak up against any teacher, and ask for that teacher to be fired!" But what if "speaking up" was ALL you had the right to do ... because the school administrators couldn't fire said teacher simply based on his promotion of causes that were objectionable to the school founders.

What if practically ALL the parents objected to this teacher staying on staff, and started withdrawing their children from the school? Well, I guess then the school would fold and the teacher would be out of a job, anyway.

Now I've talked myself into a corner! I've just realized that this law, if passed, is really going to help the homeschooling cause way more than it hurts!

Because all (or most of) the fundamentalist Christian parents who are now paying big money to send their children to fundamentalist Christian schools are likely to say, "Well, heck, if paying all that tuition doesn't ensure that our children's teachers will share our beliefs -- we might as well keep our money and homeschool!"

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#38 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Dar
 
Dar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 11,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But sexual orientation isn't about someone's beliefs, or actions, or "lifestyle." It's something intrinsic to a person, like their race or gender or age. It's not a choice, like choosing to picket a clinic or choosing to join a racist organization.

And there's nothing in these kinds of laws that says you can't hire someone who seems to "fit" better with your company, or has the right "vision"... unless he "fits" because he's straight... or white... or a man.

Dar

 
fambedsingle1.gifSingle mom to Rain (1/93) , grad student, and world traveler earth.gif


  

Dar is offline  
#39 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 02:22 PM
 
KoalaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OH CANADA!
Posts: 2,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think there are two ways this can be looked at. If you are a person that believes there should be no legislation on the matter of discrimination at all, which includes laws regarding discrimination based on sex, age, race, etc., then I can see the stance that this shouldn't pass. (I don't agree with it in the least, but I can appreciate that the view is perhaps coming from something other than bigotry.) However, if you feel that some discrimination is wrong and others not, then I really can't get behind that as being the least bit sensible or appropriate.

Melanie
Magical Mama, joyfully home educating my three wonders: FR (12/02), EG (05/05), DK (06/09)
KoalaMama is offline  
#40 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 02:34 PM
 
anniedare's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Clarifying:
You CAN be fired for being gay with that as the explicit reason in the U.S. Not that ENDA would change these firings, just the explicit reason given to the employee.

Another interesting point: from a homeschool perspective, we are a married gay couple for whom employment issues such as health insurance may mean that we are able to homeschool or not, since we cannot bank on having one SAHM and the glorious "freedom" to take the kiddos to the ER should they need it, the pay for private health insurance, life insurance (no social security for spouse or kids birthed by the "other" parent,"), and a whole gamut of gay stuff. Even going to buy the family pass at the zoo for homeschool purposes takes on new and expensive meaning. So heterosexism greatly affects gay HS families, and its eradication is obviously of interest to HS families.
anniedare is offline  
#41 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 02:46 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoalaMama View Post
I think there are two ways this can be looked at. If you are a person that believes there should be no legislation on the matter of discrimination at all, which includes laws regarding discrimination based on sex, age, race, etc., then I can see the stance that this shouldn't pass.
I certainly wouldn't want to return to the days where people could be turned out of a store or restaurant because of the color of their skin.

But I see hiring (for private-owned companies) as a different matter entirely.

For instance, how do you prove that you weren't discriminating when you hired someone you really liked who just happened to be a straight white male, even though a more highly-qualified, lesbian person-of-color also applied for the job? I don't understand how you can prove what is and isn't going on in your own head.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#42 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 02:57 PM
 
Cassiopeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
For instance, how do you prove that you weren't discriminating when you hired someone you really liked who just happened to be a straight white male, even though a more highly-qualified, lesbian person-of-color also applied for the job? I don't understand how you can prove what is and isn't going on in your own head.
You take notes and have justifications for your decisions. Most of your decisions will never face any kind of challenge.

I'd be willing bet those challenges arise far less often than actual discrimination does.

And the reason that government steps in is to make sure that people who are at risk of being discriminated against can have some support as they try to earn a livelihood so they can , you know, feed their kids and stuff.
Cassiopeia is offline  
#43 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 03:04 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anniedare View Post
Clarifying:
You CAN be fired for being gay with that as the explicit reason in the U.S. Not that ENDA would change these firings, just the explicit reason given to the employee.
From my understanding, other discrimination suits don't hinge on the employer stating (verbally or in writing) that the employee's race, sex, or disability was the reason for not hiring, or for passing over for promotion, or for firing.

As a matter of fact, I worked for a company where one particular employee with legally protected minority status, was consistently able to get the exact schedule she wanted, and missed an amount of time that wouldn't have been tolerated for any of the rest of us to miss.

She'd made it clear that she knew what steps to take if she ever felt the company was being discriminatory, and the company just decided it was cheaper and less hassle to bend over backwards to accommodate her.

This leads me to believe that once a minority group has a protected status in the workplace, the burden-of-proof is on the employer if such employer decides it's not in the company's best interests to hire, or keep on, this particular person.

It doesn't sound like the employer is treated as "innocent until proven guilty" -- but rather that the employer better be ready to prove the company's innocence in the event that there's an accusation.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#44 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 03:19 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Of course, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people would use a legally-protected status to bully and coerce others. So maybe the story in my previous post didn't need to be shared. It's kind of fear-mongering, to focus on what people "could" do if they had the legal backing.

Still, I can see why it would be scary to private business-owners for employees to have even more suit-worthy causes. Most people wouldn't dream of doing something unscrupulous just because they legally "could" -- but then, there are always those one or two who do.

And if "Having Confidence in the Basic Goodness of All People" is the rationale for passing laws that might enable some to unfairly coerce employers -- that same rationale can be used just as well to argue that we don't these need laws, and that "most people" (including most employers) are kind and caring -- not racist, sexist, or homophobic.

I think the push for these laws is evidence that the advocates don't have total confidence in the basic goodness of all people -- and maybe (or maybe not) for good reason.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#45 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 03:54 PM
 
Rigama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Of course, I don't believe for a second that the majority of people would use a legally-protected status to bully and coerce others. So maybe the story in my previous post didn't need to be shared. It's kind of fear-mongering, to focus on what people "could" do if they had the legal backing.

Still, I can see why it would be scary to private business-owners for employees to have even more suit-worthy causes. Most people wouldn't dream of doing something unscrupulous just because they legally "could" -- but then, there are always those one or two who do.

And if "Having Confidence in the Basic Goodness of All People" is the rationale for passing laws that might enable some to unfairly coerce employers -- that same rationale can be used just as well to argue that we don't these need laws, and that "most people" (including most employers) are kind and caring -- not racist, sexist, or homophobic.

I think the push for these laws is evidence that the advocates don't have total confidence in the basic goodness of all people -- and maybe (or maybe not) for good reason.

I wish Confidence in the Basic Goodness of All People were enough, but it's just not.

I have to wonder if those who are not in support of this bill would also feel so passionately if a bill were passed to make it legal, once again, to slap your secretary on the ass or to openly and unabashedly pay females and racial minorities far less than WASP males. There was a time, just 30 years ago, when women had on choice but to allow their male co-workers and bosses sexually harass them.

If, as the owner of a company, my husband felt that he should hire only women who were amicable to fondling and verbal harrassment, he'd be up the creek without a paddle if one of those women finally had enough and filed suit. And he'd DESERVE to be up that creek.

Should we make sexual harrassement legal again because we just believe in the goodness of most people and trust that women won't make up lies about their employers? Should we just trust that companies won't offer special perks to their white male employees while paying their female and minority counter-parts far less and witholding the perks?

addicted, homeschooling, freelancing mama to DS 8. Pet mama to Harvey the Wonder Mutt :, Pnut: and Autumn : Oh, yeah, and
Rigama is offline  
#46 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 03:57 PM
 
wonderwahine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: wi fi didnt do it!
Posts: 17,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Z View Post
As far as I can tell, the only thing it has to do with homeschooling (or schooling in general) is that the bigots would not be allowed to act on their bigotry when hiring people. Christian schools/co-ops/groups would not be able to forbid hiring "the gays" to teach their kids. Because, ya know, we have to protect our kids from catching "the gay".

As a homeschooler who is Christian and lives in the midwest, I get a lot of people assuming that part of the reason I homeschool is to protect my kids from "wrong influences". Well, they are right, but their definition of "wrong" is drastically different than my definition.
i am following the same line as you.
wonderwahine is offline  
#47 of 47 Old 10-18-2007, 05:22 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigama View Post
I have to wonder if those who are not in support of this bill would also feel so passionately if a bill were passed to make it legal, once again, to slap your secretary on the ass or to openly and unabashedly pay females and racial minorities far less than WASP males.
Well, I can't speak for everyone else who has reservations that make them feel hesitant about supporting the bill in question. But I, personally, would be horrified if a bill were passed that "made it legal, once again, to slap your secretary on the ass..."

I'm not sure if male wasps are capable of doing the same type or amount of work as female humans (regardless of race or religion) -- but I'm all for paying an insect as much as a human if the insect truly is doing the same job.

Quote:
If, as the owner of a company, my husband felt that he should hire only women who were amicable to fondling and verbal harrassment, he'd be up the creek without a paddle if one of those women finally had enough and filed suit. And he'd DESERVE to be up that creek.
I don't think having concerns about the bill is in the same league as saying that ANY worker, male or female, should have to put up with fondling and verbal harassment in order to keep a job.

Quote:
Should we make sexual harrassement legal again because we just believe in the goodness of most people and trust that women won't make up lies about their employers?
No.

Quote:
Should we just trust that companies won't offer special perks to their white male employees while paying their female and minority counter-parts far less and witholding the perks?
No.

I also don't believe in trusting that this bill, if passed, might not make someone guilty until proven innocent, when all that person is doing is making hiring and personnel decisions in the best interests of his or her own private company.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off