|
meat sweats posted:I'm not going to accept that it's the same thing as a gay relationship just because you assert it over and over again. "People used to disapprove of homosexuality, therefore disapproving of anything is bad" is terrible, terrible logic. You are intentionally misreading something into my statements in the attempt to have a convenient strawman target.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
E-Tank posted:You are literally making the exact same arguments that people made against homosexuality, the target has just been changed to BDSM. No, I'm not equating them, I'm saying you're using the same script that anti-gay bigots are using. I'm sorry, is BDSM an inescapable and unignorable orientation of base sexual drives that's had those who hold it murdered throughout history for the crime of merely daring to exist? No. It's a set of sexual habits; some harmlessly playful which can be safely ignored, many deeply and undeniably rooted in misogyny and rape culture which should under no circumstances be encouraged or considered healthy to enjoy. Has it occurred to you that this 'script' that had no merit when aimed at homosexuality perhaps has more when aimed at people who are sexually aroused by the idea of telling someone when they can and can't pee and getting to whip them when they disobey?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:First time I encountered a gay person tell a bi person bi doesn't exist was on some game forum, I wanna say the official Elder Scrolls boards. The guy saying it was open about being a furry, and showed absolutely no sign of being anything other than 100% serious. Like, the text under his avatar said "furry and proud." It was loving bizarre. This is a hard lesson to learn but it's very true. Oppression doesn't grant you special knowledge or tolerance, at all. Also, there was a gay furry on a gay news website bemoaning Obama's proposed executive order to protect transgender federal employees. Any group of people will close ranks, because it fulfills the same function for marginalized groups as for dominant ones. Gyre posted:It took me a full 6 years to realize I was bi because there was just no template for me that the idea of bisexuality was an actual valid thing. I vacillated between thinking I was straight and gay until I got a crush on a female teacher, which combined with earlier crushes on men made me realize what was up. There's also a double standard where if a guy expresses same-sex attraction once, then continues to date women, the assumption is he's gay but just in denial, whereas if a woman expresses same-sex attraction once, then continues to date women, she was just "experimenting." It would be nice if increased bisexual visibility would help to remove these assumptions. Along with the "all bi people are liars" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Has it occurred to you that this 'script' that had no merit when aimed at homosexuality perhaps has more when aimed at people who are sexually aroused by the idea of telling someone when they can and can't pee and getting to whip them when they disobey? . . . Fair point. I concur, there are limitations. At first though he wasn't even admitting there are degrees, just saying 'all BDSM is wrong'. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I'm sorry, is BDSM an inescapable and unignorable orientation of base sexual drives that's had those who hold it murdered throughout history for the crime of merely daring to exist? No. It's a set of sexual habits; some harmlessly playful which can be safely ignored, many deeply and undeniably rooted in misogyny and rape culture which should under no circumstances be encouraged or considered healthy to enjoy. LGBT rights: being able to say "my wife" or "my husband" without fear of being fired or beaten. BDSM rights: being able to say "I torture my sub's nutsack, he's into it" at work without people saying "why are you telling me this," apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^^ I hate people who bring that poo poo into stuff like work and regular conversations as much as you do. Sexual stuff is sexual stuff, BDSM or no.Smudgie Buggler posted:I'm sorry, is BDSM an inescapable and unignorable orientation of base sexual drives that's had those who hold it murdered throughout history for the crime of merely daring to exist? No. It's a set of sexual habits; some harmlessly playful which can be safely ignored, many deeply and undeniably rooted in misogyny and rape culture which should under no circumstances be encouraged or considered healthy to enjoy. Honestly I don't fully know why I enjoy BDSM, and while I'm sure there's some societal component it's very weird looking at yourself and wondering why you like these things. Personally, I think whether your example is messed up depends on what you're envisioning when you think of it. If you're talking about a dom who thinks that their "control" is anything but an agreement between them and their sub that can be canceled at any time and/or who uses an actual proper whip, then yes that is absolutely hosed up. When I think about it I think about dom who knows their control is just for fun, and who's using something like a riding crop and is experienced with using it so they don't cause any permanent damage. If you still think that's messed up, then I don't think we're on the same page in this discussion and it'll probably go nowhere. EDIT 2: Back on topic, the being refused medical care thing for transgender patients is really just insane, especially by ERs and EMTs. Aren't there laws that protect people in general from being denied emergency care? Gyre fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:First time I encountered a gay person tell a bi person bi doesn't exist was on some game forum, I wanna say the official Elder Scrolls boards. The guy saying it was open about being a furry, and showed absolutely no sign of being anything other than 100% serious. Like, the text under his avatar said "furry and proud." It was loving bizarre. How does he have that opinion? There are more bisexual furries than gay or straight. As for minorities being more sensitive or tolerant, there's a tipping point I think, when a minority becomes such a punching bag for society that they just all go crazy and start eating each other. I definitely think there's some of that in the queer community in the US at least. A quick jaunt over to some of the more insular trans tumblr feeds and you'll see what I mean. Some of the older gay men who came out in the 60s and 70s, lived through much tougher times, lived through the worst of the AIDS crisis, definitely have some tough opinions to deal with too. I can easily see how that happened, considering the situations these people have been in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Gyre posted:Honestly I don't fully know why I enjoy BDSM, and while I'm sure there's some societal component it's very weird looking at yourself and wondering why you like these things. I don't think that's hosed up, no. But you've also pretty much out and out claimed that you're unwilling to question why you like the idea of sexual violence, even if you don't actually commit meaningful violence. Questioning the reasons why we think we way we do is super important. If you're homosexual, there's no reason to question why you're homosexual because there was never a thing that made you gay that's worth examining. It'd be like me questioning why I'm exactly six feet tall. But it's a very different thing to question attitudes, proclivities and preferences over which you might actually be able to assert some modicum of control and/or better understanding of which might better assist you in regulating your own behaviour for your own and others' benefits. I'm in no way suggesting the value of this kind of habitual metacognition is limited to the sexual, either. Isn't it just good life practice? edit: I'm not trying to have a personal go at you, by the way. I know it might sound like I am, but I'm really just attacking the very prevalent idea that we have no control whatsoever over our sexual tastes and so we shouldn't ever question them or those of other people. While it's perfectly clear that there's no way to control our sexual orientation, I don't buy for one second that reflection and conscious behaviour modification can't alter our tastes. And obviously I believe that there are many sexual tastes out there that are extremely problematic and indicative of very deep societal disorders. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Gyre posted:EDIT 2: Back on topic, the being refused medical care thing for transgender patients is really just insane, especially by ERs and EMTs. Aren't there laws that protect people in general from being denied emergency care? There are. quote:The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay... Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. I'm not sure how many hospitals don't accept Medicare, but the percentage is probably vanishingly small. There are also probably going to be state and other laws that apply. For example, in NY quote:Hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, dentists' offices, and therapists' offices are "places of public accommodation." In New York State, it is against the law for a place of public accommodation to discriminate against transgender and gender nonconforming people. --Sylvia Rivera Law Project In the Tyra Hunter case, her mother won an amount in her negligence and malpractice claim because the hospital violated the D.C. Human Rights act for withdrawing care and openly denigrating her. Of course, it still happens on a regular basis, but hopefully this is changing. Lambda Legal has a factsheet here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I don't think that's hosed up, no. But you've also pretty much out and out claimed that you're unwilling to question why you like the idea of sexual violence, even if you don't actually commit meaningful violence. Questioning the reasons why we think we way we do is super important. I agree that I can seem a bit reticent, and I think part of it is that because it's walking a knife edge of idea and practice that it can be very very hard to look at. Thinking you're a good person when you enjoy BDSM can be very hard sometimes and there have been times I've just felt utterly disgusted at some of the more hardcore stuff and wondered whether I'm coming too close to something that isn't good at all. It also probably just has to do with me having difficulty analyzing my own emotions otherwise, which is a pretty constant source of anxiety for me. I do have some ideas on why I like BDSM, but those are more personal than I'm willing to share. I also think a lot on what it is to be a good dom in BDSM and my own philosophy on it, and I agree that such reflection is pretty drat important. I don't think a day goes by when I don't question my views on something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Gyre posted:It took me a full 6 years to realize I was bi because there was just no template for me that the idea of bisexuality was an actual valid thing. I vacillated between thinking I was straight and gay until I got a crush on a female teacher, which combined with earlier crushes on men made me realize what was up. I realized I was bi in between 2005 and 2011, so it was after the study that said bisexual men don't exist, and before the subsequent studies that said bisexual men do exist. For a long time (ie a decade) I wrote off the same sex attractions as open-mindedness. It wasn't until after I graduated from college that I began seriously thinking something was off, but I was pretty hard on myself about it, very skeptical at every turn. I even considered that I was trans, thinking that if men couldn't be bisexual, then I must have a female brain trapped in a male body. I did have some autogynephilic fantasies, so I started taking that idea very seriously. I even came out as trans and started seeing a gender specialist (briefly, before taking it back). The power of skepticism is tough to convey to someone who doesn't face it. Gyre posted:Edit: ^^^^ I hate people who bring that poo poo into stuff like work and regular conversations as much as you do. Sexual stuff is sexual stuff, BDSM or no. Well work obviously is one thing but among close friends? Sex is something that people naturally talk about if they're comfortable around each other. If a conversation among people who know each other drifts to sexual topics, I think you should be able to say what your fetishes are without people busting your chops about it. I had always thought BDSM was sort of acceptable to mention. It has that level of mainstream portrayal at this point that it's not such a big deal, or perhaps I'm mistaken? I will admit I'm not into it, don't know anyone who is who's open about it so my knowledge on the subject consists of CSI episodes and something awful threads. But I can't imagine adults giving two shits about that. Well... okay... goons will get very faggoty and bent out of shape about things that they shouldn't but normal human beings ought to be okay. Granted also, I have a Y chromosome, as do all of my friends, so the social dynamics are a bit different there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Well... okay... goons will get very faggoty and bent out of shape about things that they shouldn't but normal human beings ought to be okay. What the gently caress is going on in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Gyre posted:I agree that I can seem a bit reticent, and I think part of it is that because it's walking a knife edge of idea and practice that it can be very very hard to look at. Thinking you're a good person when you enjoy BDSM can be very hard sometimes and there have been times I've just felt utterly disgusted at some of the more hardcore stuff and wondered whether I'm coming too close to something that isn't good at all. asking yourself if you're a 'good person' or a 'bad person' for enjoying weird sex poo poo is about as productive as dressing up as an ouroboros and trying to eat you own tail. you'll spend hours getting nowhere and look pretty dumb in the process. you aren't going to find moral truth in the way your brain produces the 'aw yeah thats hot' sensation. best thing to do is ask yourself if its negatively affecting any other part of your life. if yes, deal with it. if no, go hog wild The Whole Internet posted:I had always thought BDSM was sort of acceptable to mention. It has that level of mainstream portrayal at this point that it's not such a big deal, or perhaps I'm mistaken? I will admit I'm not into it, don't know anyone who is who's open about it so my knowledge on the subject consists of CSI episodes and something awful threads. But I can't imagine adults giving two shits about that. Well... okay... goons will get very faggoty and bent out of shape about things that they shouldn't but normal human beings ought to be okay. dont talk about bdsm to your friends because 1. they dont care and 2. its incredibly lame
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Well work obviously is one thing but among close friends? Sex is something that people naturally talk about if they're comfortable around each other. If a conversation among people who know each other drifts to sexual topics, I think you should be able to say what your fetishes are without people busting your chops about it. No, this happens around women, too. I guess I just meant "non-close friend" conversations. Also, BDSM is kinda complicated in how it's been mainstreamed. From what's I've heard 50 Shades of Grey is basically "this guy has mommy issues, that's why he ties you up" and "safeword? what's that?" along with a lot of patriarchal baggage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:What the gently caress is going on in this thread? This is, uh, very educational. Gyre posted:Also, BDSM is kinda complicated in how it's been mainstreamed. From what's I've heard 50 Shades of Grey is basically "this guy has mommy issues, that's why he ties you up" and "safeword? what's that?" along with a lot of patriarchal baggage. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
I've never actually seen it but I understand it is quite sympathetic, though when I read about it I had one problem about how at the end of the movie Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is ordered to not move from her seat for days. There's ordering your sub to do something, and then there's literally ordering them to sit in their own filth and not move their hands or legs for three days. I think it's a very irresponsible order, even if you take care of them after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Gyre posted:I've never actually seen it but I understand it is quite sympathetic, though when I read about it I had one problem about how at the end of the movie Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is ordered to not move from her seat for days. There's ordering your sub to do something, and then there's literally ordering them to sit in their own filth and not move their hands or legs for three days. I think it's a very irresponsible order, even if you take care of them after. (Sorry for the continued derail.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:...dressing up as an ouroboros and trying to eat you own tail. ... New fetish found. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Cool! How's your access to mental health care over there? Is the evaluation something that most transgender people are able to get? I know Sweden only ended their forced sterilization policy last year, how did that ever become a thing? Here in the US it's a patchwork of course, but to get your passport changed you need to show a note from a doctor saying you've had "appropriate clinical treatment," which is defined only by your doctor. To legally change your gender now you need a statement from a psychologist who is trained in gender issues. At the moment only two institutions for transgender health care and one single psychologist are certified to give make those statements, although more may follow. The institutions can be a bit set in their ways and protocols. If you're a 'normal' transgender person it shouldn't be a problem, but I'm wondering how they will treat queer or non-binary people. It's definitely an improvement from the old system, but I hope when the law is evaluated in a few years we can scrap the whole statement from a doctor and go to an Argentinia- or even Denmark-system. EDIT: Apparently at one of the institutions only one person is allowed to send the evalutions, and right now she goes on vacation and won't be back for a month. Transgender health care in the Netherlands can be horribly mismanaged. GrimSqueaker fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Because the only reason he's hearing homophobic remarks is because of his gay proclivities. There's nothing about his bisexuality that makes it any different. The problems of bisexuals are the problems of homosexuals, plus something that does not present a problem in this context (heterosexuality). Right now, you're kind of playing right into his point though. Prove that biphobia isn't an endemic problem in the gay community, prove that it's actually a good thing that heterosexuals won't date us and don't think we exist, and then you can say the problems are the same. Or at least the statement will have some credibility. At the moment you're not doing gays any favors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Matt Barber sees the Hobby Lobby in a new light I guess I don't get the logic of giving people like this publicity and attention. Like I don't even know who the hell this dude is. They're such a dying breed anymore and it's very difficult to come across them unless you're actively searching. It's the same way with Westboro Baptist: if you ignore them, they'll simply go away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
GrimSqueaker posted:To legally change your gender now you need a statement from a psychologist who is trained in gender issues. At the moment only two institutions for transgender health care and one single psychologist are certified to give make those statements, although more may follow. The institutions can be a bit set in their ways and protocols. If you're a 'normal' transgender person it shouldn't be a problem, but I'm wondering how they will treat queer or non-binary people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Knew this was going to happenquote:A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action. Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion. "We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Knew this was going to happen Those faith leaders need to actually try reading the Hobby Lobby decision if they think it helps them at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Those faith leaders need to actually try reading the Hobby Lobby decision if they think it helps them at all. It seems like half the time they can't even be assed to read their own Bible, so I really don't think they're ever going to read a Supreme Court decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:I guess I don't get the logic of giving people like this publicity and attention. Like I don't even know who the hell this dude is. They're such a dying breed anymore and it's very difficult to come across them unless you're actively searching. It's the same way with Westboro Baptist: if you ignore them, they'll simply go away. That guy is a prominent anti-gay activist and lawyer who's been involved in federal cases arguing in favor of anti-LGBT discrimination, which is why he finds the ruling so exciting because he's probably going to try to find a test case and sue in federal court trying to overturn anti-discrimination laws. I don't think he will be successful but it's still not something that anyone should be ignoring, quite the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
quote:I realized I was bi in between 2005 and 2011, so it was after the study that said bisexual men don't exist, and before the subsequent studies that said bisexual men do exist. For a long time (ie a decade) I wrote off the same sex attractions as open-mindedness. It wasn't until after I graduated from college that I began seriously thinking something was off, but I was pretty hard on myself about it, very skeptical at every turn. Not my exact experience, but similar. I found out at the turn of the century, and found exactly zero sympathy withint the LGBT community. Nobody inside or out was willing to even admit my thoughts were real or legitimate. It's a huge reason as to my I've been in the closet as much as I have been since then. Whoever it was upthread who said EEOC law, thanks. I did my research and talked to the EEO rep at work. Things at least have a potential to get done now. And back in the general news section, hopefully all the people who said the Hobby Lobby case had no LGBT spillover should eat some crow after the awful letter posted upthread. Bigots think SCOTUS just gave them an out to be bigots, which is a net loss in real rights in the short term even if they are ruled against eventually. EDIT: Dropped out the article since I saw it was posted above. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Not my exact experience, but similar. I found out at the turn of the century, and found exactly zero sympathy withint the LGBT community. Nobody inside or out was willing to even admit my thoughts were real or legitimate. It's a huge reason as to my I've been in the closet as much as I have been since then. The fastest way to prove to someone that you are bisexual (and also, this works in reverse to immediately disprove the idea that "homosexuality is a choice") is to let them watch you get sexually aroused to images or media or individuals of the same sex. for guys: "oh you're not gay." *gets a boner for a dude rear end* "no that's not legit". Or if someone is claiming homosexuality is a choice ; "okay choose to get wet / a boner for a girl / dude rear end."
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:Right now, you're kind of playing right into his point though. Prove that biphobia isn't an endemic problem in the gay community, prove that it's actually a good thing that heterosexuals won't date us and don't think we exist, and then you can say the problems are the same. Or at least the statement will have some credibility. At the moment you're not doing gays any favors. Look mate, a few posts up you used the word "faggoty" to describe uptight people, so I don't think you're in much of a position to be placing obligations on the gay community to prove a loving negative. Are you as anti-gay as you're sounding right now or are you just wording your poo poo very stupidly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:And back in the general news section, hopefully all the people who said the Hobby Lobby case had no LGBT spillover should eat some crow after the awful letter posted upthread. Bigots think SCOTUS just gave them an out to be bigots, which is a net loss in real rights in the short term even if they are ruled against eventually. I'm not sure how to respond to this stupidity. In other news the Hobby Lobby decision has solidified the legal basis for my claim on the throne of America, which you must now take seriously because I said it. (The amusing thing is that's actually less stupid then what your saying, since the ruling specifically mentioned that the reasoning could not be applied to discrimination, but didn't mention anything about my claims of succession)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Look mate, a few posts up you used the word "faggoty" to describe uptight people, so I don't think you're in much of a position to be placing obligations on the gay community to prove a loving negative. Are you as anti-gay as you're sounding right now or are you just wording your poo poo very stupidly? My boyfriend is gay, as well as 60% of my friend circle, most of whom use the word human being from time to time ironically, because they can. It's empowering to reclaim words. I'm really not in the mood to have a deep philosophical discussion about 'how gay' someone has to be before it becomes acceptable to use the word 'human being', but we could talk about that if that's what you want... Suffice to say I don't use it often, but I use it a non-zero amount and I think that's okay, particularly on a comedy forum where everyone else seems to fashion themselves as masters of wit and they use it all the time. Seems like a safe crowd. Forgive me, forgot I wasn't in GBS for a post there. I am deeply disturbed if you genuinely think I sound homophobic. Not exactly sure how to respond to that. If this is in any way a response to my comment about kinkshaming... well it obviously seems like it is. So let's get into it. Like I said, I'm not into BDSM, I have no dog in this fight. I do think there is a reasonable ground between mindlessly letting everything on the DSM-IV fly regardless of harm, vs calling it all rape culture. I also am less sure that fetishes are that much more malleable than orientations. You seem awfully sure, disproportionately so: is there really evidence to back this up? Bear in mind that last bit is not an opinion I ever trot out around hardcore conservatives. I'm well aware that some people are incapable of nuance, and that they'd use this view of mine as a justification of all their fears that after gay marriage, the next things on the docket will be kiddy diddling and dog loving, because those people can't help it either! As if biological determinism suddenly outweighed the need to have consent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:My boyfriend is gay, as well as 60% of my friend circle, most of whom use the word human being from time to time ironically, because they can. It's empowering to reclaim words. I'm really not in the mood to have a deep philosophical discussion about 'how gay' someone has to be before it becomes acceptable to use the word 'human being', but we could talk about that if that's what you want... Suffice to say I don't use it often, but I use it a non-zero amount and I think that's okay, particularly on a comedy forum where everyone else seems to fashion themselves as masters of wit and they use it all the time. Seems like a safe crowd. Forgive me, forgot I wasn't in GBS for a post there. It's not good to use the word as a pejorative, whether you're trying to reclaim it or not. Oppression olympics disclaimer: I'm a bisexual male sadist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm not sure how to respond to this stupidity. The issue is not that they win, it's that they try. Getting fired for being LGBT and then only getting back to baseline after a long lawsuit and some obvious attempts at legal challenges (well not really, since you'll be blackballed for suing your employer) is a loss any way I see it. And that's assuming that you win in the end-- there's a million ways you could lose too. The fact that the bigots feel empowered enough to do something like write a letter like this speaks volumes. It's doubly true in situations where people are in cleared work (a non-trivial amount of federal contractors), so to some extent your sexual history is documented. The only way to win is for some solid law to say "gently caress your religion, you still have to not discriminate", and there is enough of a crack for some bigots to try to thread the needle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The issue is not that they win, it's that they try. Getting fired for being LGBT and then only getting back to baseline after a long lawsuit and some obvious attempts at legal challenges (well not really, since you'll be blackballed for suing your employer) is a loss any way I see it. And that's assuming that you win in the end-- there's a million ways you could lose too. The fact that the bigots feel empowered enough to do something like write a letter like this speaks volumes. It's doubly true in situations where people are in cleared work (a non-trivial amount of federal contractors), so to some extent your sexual history is documented. The only way to win is for some solid law to say "gently caress your religion, you still have to not discriminate", and there is enough of a crack for some bigots to try to thread the needle. Either you live in a state where this already a law that clearly says you can't discriminate, or you live in a state where there isn't a law and it was already legal to fire someone for being gay. This ruling had about as much of an effect on that situation Scalia's favorite episode of Star Trek TNG. Its doubly false in the case of cleared work because federal contractors are subject to EDNA via executive order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Either you live in a state where this already a law that clearly says you can't discriminate, or you live in a state where there isn't a law and it was already legal to fire someone for being gay. This ruling had about as much of an effect on that situation Scalia's favorite episode of Star Trek TNG. The entire point of the letter going out was to get a religious carve-out for discrimination against federal contractors. It's a nice word with a legal threat behind it-- they have a court decision that doesn't really help us but in their minds may open the door to legalized discrimination. Instead of being disempowered, these bigots feel empowered to move forward instead of finally rolling over and letting people have basic rights. And if the federal government can't restrict discrimination, there's a pretty good chance that states won't be able to either-- state's rights is a argument from bad faith all the way down. And again, you're acting like the fact that there has to be a test case doesn't mean there is damage done. Someone has to be fired or hosed over for a test case to happen-- just because it won't be you or me doesn't mean that person isn't real and now subject to real economic violence. Acting like this is no big deal for basic rights (not just for LGBT people-- I could see some asshat using Christian Indentity doctrine to make the same argument about racial minorities) is the same to me as saying any of the abortion restrictions being put in here now aren't a big deal since they aren't affect you yet. There's no reason to wait passively until you get screwed over-- dancing off the edge of the cliff always seemed stupid beyond belief to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The entire point of the letter going out was to get a religious carve-out for discrimination against federal contractors. It's a nice word with a legal threat behind it-- they have a court decision that doesn't really help us but in their minds may open the door to legalized discrimination. Instead of being disempowered, these bigots feel empowered to move forward instead of finally rolling over and letting people have basic rights. And if the federal government can't restrict discrimination, there's a pretty good chance that states won't be able to either-- state's rights is a argument from bad faith all the way down. And again, you're acting like the fact that there has to be a test case doesn't mean there is damage done. Someone has to be fired or hosed over for a test case to happen-- just because it won't be you or me doesn't mean that person isn't real and now subject to real economic violence. The letter does precisely nothing at all. The shitheads on it have and will continue to fire people for being gay, because it's legal most of the time, and it's easy to hide and hard to prove. It's no big deal because it changes jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:The letter does precisely nothing at all. The shitheads on it have and will continue to fire people for being gay, because it's legal most of the time, and it's easy to hide and hard to prove. It's no big deal because it changes jack poo poo. Obama has signed an executive order saying discrimination against at least LGB (not sure on T) persons isn't allowed for federal contractors. Note that you could make a similar argument about racial civil rights-- should we not worry about someone challenging the CRA (especially with the current court makeup) because it's already pretty easy to fire someone for being black? As opposed to the more correct position of strengthening the law and coming down on people like a ton of bricks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Obama has signed an executive order saying discrimination against at least LGB (not sure on T) persons isn't allowed for federal contractors. Note that you could make a similar argument about racial civil rights-- should we not worry about someone challenging the CRA (especially with the current court makeup) because it's already pretty easy to fire someone for being black? As opposed to the more correct position of strengthening the law and coming down on people like a ton of bricks. He hasn't actually signed anything yet, it's just being discussed. This is like Strom Thurmond's filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The entire point of the letter going out was to get a religious carve-out for discrimination against federal contractors. It's a nice word with a legal threat behind it-- they have a court decision that doesn't really help us but in their minds may open the door to legalized discrimination. Instead of being disempowered, these bigots feel empowered to move forward instead of finally rolling over and letting people have basic rights. And if the federal government can't restrict discrimination, there's a pretty good chance that states won't be able to either-- state's rights is a argument from bad faith all the way down. And again, you're acting like the fact that there has to be a test case doesn't mean there is damage done. Someone has to be fired or hosed over for a test case to happen-- just because it won't be you or me doesn't mean that person isn't real and now subject to real economic violence. Yes except its a letter written by idiots who don't understand the ruling, if anything LGBT employment rights have been strengthened because the ruling explicitly stated that preventing discrimination in employment is a compelling government interest to passed the test under the RFRA and the constitution. In other news I wrote a letter to the pope to legalize gay marriage worldwide under a vague threat of invasion by my secret martian fleet. This is slightly more compelling then that other letter because at least the existence of my secret martian fleet isn't provably false by anyone with an internet connection.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:The entire point of the letter going out was to get a religious carve-out for discrimination against federal contractors. It's a nice word with a legal threat behind it-- they have a court decision that doesn't really help us but in their minds may open the door to legalized discrimination. Instead of being disempowered, these bigots feel empowered to move forward instead of finally rolling over and letting people have basic rights. And if the federal government can't restrict discrimination, there's a pretty good chance that states won't be able to either-- state's rights is a argument from bad faith all the way down. And again, you're acting like the fact that there has to be a test case doesn't mean there is damage done. Someone has to be fired or hosed over for a test case to happen-- just because it won't be you or me doesn't mean that person isn't real and now subject to real economic violence. The letter means nothing. The ruling is what matters and as lovely as it is it has nothing to do with what the letter is talking about. They might as well write a letter saying to put all gays in death camps on the moon because Jesus said so for all the power it has. Any idiot can write a letter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 15:22
|
|