Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (21557)	8/12/2001 4:02:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I'd like to see full coverage for gays under the Civil Rights act. What are your thoughts on it? I can't see it. The necessity just eludes me. I'm aware of what a sore spot it is for gays not to be covered. You may not have been reading this thread when I was talking about one of my jobs at EPA, which was the policy and oversight of employee groups, including a gay group, GLOBE. GLOBE kept pushing, in vain, for the same treatment as those minorities covered under the Act. Covered groups, like the various ethnic groups, have what is know as special emphasis programs, which are part of official business. GLOBE has only the unofficial group, whose activities are not to be done on company time. Big bone of contention and I was sympathetic to their frustration. The reason I mention this experience is only to note that I've probably heard all the arguments and that I've given the matter some thought. I don't think we should put up with discrimination against gays. I like the state and local legislation protecting them from housing and employment discrimination, for example. I agree with the stand that the Dems took on the faith-based legislation where they opposed an exemption for the local charities on following those local laws. When I try to think, though, of what public purpose affirmative action for gays would serve, I'm at a loss. I don't much like the current version of affirmative action, but I don't think that influences my thinking on this. I just try to compare the situation with gays with the situation blacks and women were in before passage of the Act. It doesn't seem the same to me. For example, why should gay-owned businesses get set-asides? There's no indication that gays as a group are economically disadvantaged in any way as were blacks and women before they were covered. And I don't know what public purpose it would serve if Federal highway builders went out of their way to have some gravel delivered by a gay-owned business. As for affirmative action in employment, that's a tough one. In the first place, would employers even know if someone is gay? It's not a conspicuous trait like for blacks and women, unless the individual wants to be showy about it. Typically, there would be absolutely no difference between a gay and a straight in the workplace. To run an affirmative action program, personnel and line managers would need to know who was gay, something all gay employees wouldn't want to share. That would be like running an affirmative action program for Jews, who often don't want their religion/ethnicity recorded. In the second place, would there be some government interest in having five or ten percent of each company's workforce be gay? Diversity is nice, but it needs to be distinguishable diversity. If gays are pretty much indistinguishable in the workplace, then how can it can't be said that they bring anything special to the work product unless the work product dealt specifically with gay issues. That's my thinking. I would protect gays against discrimination but not require any diversity programs for them. I feel the same way about atheists. Karen