2013-04-17, 07:20 PM
[MENTION=1697]FrozNlite[/MENTION];
I do know how these things work. I was oversimplifying for the sake of rhetoric, but I guess that didn't work.
I know you're not looking for a law that says "don't fire gays", you're looking at the law that says, "don't fire people based on race, sex, religion, age, yadda yadda yadda" and you want to make sure it includes such terms as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in that list of criteria to not discriminate by.
My example still stands. There is no "eye color" or "handedness" or any number of other characteristics in that list, because nobody even thinks to discriminate based on them. That is true equality, legal and social. A state that puts "sexual orientation" in that list is acknowledging that its citizens would discriminate on that, given the chance. I don't see that as such a wonderful thing, but I suppose I'm skipping a step or three there.
I do know how these things work. I was oversimplifying for the sake of rhetoric, but I guess that didn't work.
I know you're not looking for a law that says "don't fire gays", you're looking at the law that says, "don't fire people based on race, sex, religion, age, yadda yadda yadda" and you want to make sure it includes such terms as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in that list of criteria to not discriminate by.
My example still stands. There is no "eye color" or "handedness" or any number of other characteristics in that list, because nobody even thinks to discriminate based on them. That is true equality, legal and social. A state that puts "sexual orientation" in that list is acknowledging that its citizens would discriminate on that, given the chance. I don't see that as such a wonderful thing, but I suppose I'm skipping a step or three there.