In a 9-8 vote, commissioners passed his proposal to include "a person's political affiliation, sexual orientation or gender identity'' in the county's nondiscrimination policy.Supporting the change were all seven Democrats plus Republicans Joe VanBruggen (Comstock) and Bob Brink (Oshtemo). Brink switched his position suddenly, having voted against the policy in 2004.
The term "sexual orientation" is used by liberals to confuse the distinction between immutable characteristics and chosen behavior. This policy has the effect of endorsing homosexuality, a position that runs contrary to the moral foundations of our country.
What about "gender identity?" "Gender" is the term that liberals use to denote the psychological and behavioral differences between men and women. This stems from dislike of "sex," which implies that such differences are genetically based, and immutable. The concept "gender identity" implies that people can have whatever gender they want, independent of their sex. It refers to "bisexuals" or "transsexuals".
Of course, there are many behaviors that should not result in firing. Should they all be part of the "nondiscrimination" policy?
Quite aside from the morality of such behavior, this new policy will have negative consequences. This policy will make it more difficult to fire people by facilitating lawsuits, public outrage, etc. This is true whether or not a given firing was unjustified or not. Making it more difficult to fire people means that the county will be less likely to try, whether or not it is justified. If there is less risk of being fired, county employees are less likely to work as hard or as well. Thus this policy will cost the taxpayers money.
Another problem is that some of the above categories are not even readily identifiable. As far as I know, there is no way to objectively test for homosexuality. Will homosexuals be required to register with the county? Can anyone claim to be one when about to be fired and cause the county a legal nightmare? Did anyone think about this policy before voting for it?
Then there's "political affiliation". I'm sure we'll all sleep more soundly at night knowing that the county can't fire Nazis anymore. But what if a Nazi's political affiliation requires him to discriminate against homosexuals? Then who does the county fire?
5 comments:
"As far as I know, there is no way to objectively test for homosexuality. Will homosexuals be required to register with the county? Can anyone claim to be one when about to be fired and cause the county a legal nightmare?"
Alan, you have finally lost your mind. You've been on the edge for awhile, and now you've fallen over it. Testing for homosexuality? This is a joke, right? If someone was openly gay, and they were fired, they would have to prove that they were fired BECAUSE they were gay. Just because someone gets fired and they are gay doesn't mean they were fired because of their homosexuality. It's the same thing when a black man is fired from a job. He's not necessarily being fired because he's black, it's because he wasn't doing his job.
"The term "sexual orientation" is used by liberals to confuse the distinction between immutable characteristics and chosen behavior."
Did you choose to be straight, Alan? Of course not, no more than I did. I didn't wake up one day and go "gosh, I think I'll decide to like those of the opposite sex today, you know, to see if I like it." I just like women. The same thing goes with the type of women that you or I may like. I may like women with dark skin and thick legs, and you may like women who are pale and have skinnier legs. You didn't choose to like these types of women, you just do. You don't know why, and you don't owe anyone an explanation. And they don't owe anyone an explanation for their homosexuality.
Do you also think that it is wrong to add homosexuality to a hate crimes bill? Is beating up gays because of their homosexuality okay for you? Or did they choose to be gay, and therefore they chose to get beat up?
I'm a hardcore Republican, through and through. But you know what? I'm tired of you and your droning on and on about how wrong homosexuality is. I don't think gays should be getting married, but I also don't think they should get beaten up and fired because they are gay. They did that to blacks 50 years ago. I thought we were past that...
It all becomes interesting since recent research suggests that homosexuality is actual a mental condition that isn't that different from depression. And furthermore, there has even been success in correcting homosexuality.
Out of curiousty, isn't this the same City Commission which debated and passed a resolution condeming the War in Iraq...I thought so!
Dan-
By stating that homosexuality is a "mental condition," are you saying that (a)homosexuality IS NOT a choice and (b)that heterosexuality is also some sort of mental condition?
And who told you that homosexuality had been corrected? Any proof or links to these studies? And who decided that homosexuality needed to be corrected, anyway? If you can cure homosexuality, and you make someone a homosexual by using a reverse process or something? I think this "curing" and "correcting" nonsense is just that. Can we step back into reality now?
Step back into reality? When you use a phrase like that, it tells me you're set on your views on the issues and it wouldn't be worth my time to look up the studies. As far as who decided that homosexuality needed to be corrected, I have to ask who decided that depression is something to be corrected or any other mental disorder?
Post a Comment