11.11.07
ENDA The Line For Us Average Folks?
Well, it’s time to throw PC right out the window and really piss off the crazies. Ok, so before anybody jumps me for being hateful, hating people or being mean spirited in general, let me be clear: There is no hate intended in this post. So with that said, let’s get to the heart of the matter.
With the recent congressional vote on the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), I have am forced to ask if forcing somebody to accept something ever OK? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equality, but when does equality tread on the toes of somebody else’s freedom? Should equality be something that is forced upon people regardless of their own personal feelings? I mean, I realize that it makes people feel good to force their personal beliefs on others, but what about those on the receiving end of that force?
Now if I were a business owner, I would have no problem hiring somebody who is well qualified for the position. Now, we must define “well qualified” though, and part of that qualification would be that I am OK with that person on a personal level. Since I take no issue with gays, I would have no problem with hiring a qualified gay candidate. However, if I were opposed to the gay lifestyle, I would be pretty pissed off if I were forced to hire a gay applicant - even if he were otherwise qualified.
So is it right that the government is in the business of telling people how to feel about others? Of course, this is nothing new, and as expected, I am vehemently opposed to affirmative action and most other “non-discrimination” policies. Of course it’s absolute social suicide for me to say such things, but I figure it’s better to get it out there for discussion than let things keep sliding the way they are.
Has anybody ever wondered why the government thinks it’s acceptable practice to create laws against discrimination? As far as I am concerned, it is real bad policy to try to force people to be accepting through legal channels - unless of course you’re simply trying to create more lawsuits to tie up the courts with (read CEI’s take on iy here). With the exception of creating a more litigious society, what else is accomplished by imposing these rules upon people? All it does is breed contempt and additional hate (or at least ill feelings) in those you’re trying to force.
In the end, shouldn’t it be society’s job to create equality in this modern world? If a business isn’t friendly to minority groups, shouldn’t it be the community that either straightens it out or shuts it down through activism or by simply not patronizing them?
This is the problem with non-discrimination laws. It takes the responsibility away from society. When people are forced to accept something, do they eve really accept it? I would say no. So when you get a law like ENDA coming down the pipe, it makes you wonder just what good can possibly be accomplished other than letting another minority segment of the population feel that they are entitled to preferential treatment in society. After all, that is what this is all about. Entitlement. This isn’t about equality or being fair. This is about people feeling that they are entitled to something simply because they are not “average.”
Why should a homosexual white male be entitled to something that a heterosexual white male is not? Are they not the same people with different preferences? (note: for the sake of keeping this post focused and reasonable in length, I’m only going to refer to the gay issue, but the same applies to any minority population)… What they gay population is asking for is not equality. Any look through sites like the HRC will tell you that their idea of “fair and equal” actually equates to preferential treatment. It is this idea of continuing to perpetuate the opinion that people are different and that somehow these differences entitle people to special treatment. While this wouldn’t be so bad, we have to contend with laws that tell us this at all. They call them “non discrimination” but I call them bullshit.
Part of the problem with trying to legislate discrimination issues is trying to figure out where to draw the line. Take, for example, this article from “Woman Honor Thyself.” A hair salon owner is being sued for “discrimination” for not hiring a muslim woman who wears a head scarf. Of course, the issue here isn’t about religion, it is about the head scarf, which disqualifies her as an applicant. As the salon owner says:
“I sell image - it’s very important - and I would expect a hair stylist to display her hair because I need people to be drawn in off the street.”
Yet, due to non-discrimination laws, this woman can be subject to lawsuits based on the fact that she refused to hire somebody who won’t show their hair.
And what about the transgender issue? According to Andy over at “Eleventh Avenue South” (you remember Andy, he went after Tom Swift for his condemnation of the pervert St. Paul school board member who was caught looking at porn at the school library), it is unacceptable that ENDA passed without the transgender clause. So even though they pass it to protect gays, lesbians and bisexuals, it wasn’t good enough. So now they also want people with “gender identity” issues to get special treatment too? Where does it end? Can they really force these sorts of things on people and not expect a certain amount of resentment?
I don’t want to say that equality isn’t important, but is force really the answer? Is forcing tolerance the way to end discrimination or is it simply a way to open the door to more lawsuits and force people into situations that they don’t necessarily want to (nor should they have to) be in? Tell government to stay out of issues that belong to culture and society. This is where you have to ask where one’s freedom ends and another’s begins.
ENDA has passed the House and is moving to the Senate. Tell your Senator that they should oppose ENDA, not because you’re anti-gay, but because you support the right to allow business owners to hire and fire as they see fit.
ChenZhen said,
November 11, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Wasn’t the hair salon thing in London? Not sure it makes a difference, but…
I dunno. I’d have to see the bill. Companies have professed that they are EOE’s for years, but it’s tough to prove that they aren’t hiring you because of one thing or another. I guess I’d have to say that for the most part, I agree with you on this one.
micky2 said,
November 11, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I applied as a manager at a Mexican restaraunt in Orange county once. The owner was a good friend of mine. He told me it wouldnt work because I would be subjected to reverse discrimination. (discrimination is discrimination, but thats what he called it).
I did not argue, as a matter of fact he was right.
I could of made a big stink. I spoke enough spanish, and was otherwise qualified. But why would I want to be somewhere I was not viable to the flow of things ?
And be subjected to resentment?
Being in the business all my life I understood that he also had a theme to keep and present to his customers.
He should be allowed to do this on the basis that the theme is the draw. Once you have blonde haired blue eyed guys along with red heads and what have you in an authentic atmosphere, the house looses its flavor and characteristics and charm.
The same would go for the no smoking bans.
If I want to open a bar for bikers , with biker staff and lots of cigarette smoke, I should be able to.
And if some feminine character wants to work there I should be able to say absolutly not without worrying about getting sued.
Angel said,
November 11, 2007 at 10:05 pm
so so right on the money my friend…a wake up call indeed!..great read and ty for the linkage~!
Arm Jerker J. said,
November 12, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I’m a little torn on this one. On one hand, as you know, I’m not a huge fan of affirmative action. But you also know that I’ve stated in a past post that my father was hired based on affirmative action, proved himself and with his earnings gave me a good life—with college and support. I obviously have some passion for the topic.
However, I am not sure I agree with affirmative action in these times. I still feel I want to know I’ve been hired on merit. But even today, they can hire you to fit a quota you weren’t even aware of. There is just so much gray…
As for this issue of forcing tolerance, I’m going to have to say I agree with it to a point. Why? Because living in a world of total intolerance can not be, well, tolerated. I hate ignorance. And so be it if a person disagrees with someone’s sexuality, but do they have to not obtain a job because of who they drop their drawers with? That would suck. Where is the line drawn? You can’t be hired if you like to date outside your race? Can’t be hired because you like to drink a cocktail a few times a day in the comfort of your home? I just think some of all the intolerance needs curtailing.
That said, I don’t like special treatment of others just because of x, y, z reason. I don’t ask for sympathy when I was forced to grow up fast because I grew up with a sick mother. Or because I’m a black female in a supposed “white man’s world.” I guess, once again, I’m sittin’ on the fence!
arclightzero said,
November 13, 2007 at 7:59 am
Chen, you’re right, the hair salon thing was in London; I was simply using it as an example of nondiscrimination laws gone out of control.
For a little more information as far as the wording, check out the CEI entry on ENDA:
http://www.openmarket.org/2007/11/12/enda-gay-rights-bill-passes-house/
arclightzero said,
November 13, 2007 at 8:03 am
Micky, you are so right, and that is something that many people don’t bother to think about There are simply some jobs, some employers or some situations where people just wouldn’t fit. Legally, they somebody can’t deny you the position because of your race/orientation/whatever, but it seems to be a bad idea to take that right away from the business owner. After all, they know what would work out best for their company… To force somebody to hire a person who wouldn’t be a good for for the position, simply because they fall into a “protected” class just seems really wrong.
But that’s the problem with nondiscrimination laws. They encompass too much. In the end, I think they do more harm than good - especially in this day and age.
arclightzero said,
November 13, 2007 at 8:06 am
AJJ, I was hoping you would weigh in on this, and I’m glad that you took an objective approach. Being a black woman, many of these laws are aimed specifically at you, and I’m curious about something; do you feel that you are disadvantaged and need laws to protect you? Or do you feel that society s a whole (not counting the pockets of bigotry that still exist) is accepting and open enough to give a black woman, such as yourself, a fair chance at life/work/happiness etc?
Arm Jerker J. said,
November 13, 2007 at 10:25 am
I surely don’t feel disadvantaged other than I probably picked the worst profession to get rich on! As I applied to positions and interviewed, I was not sitting there being full aware of my race or gender and the fact that all of that could hinder/help my getting a job…
I mostly worried that I may not have had enough experience…etc.
I think people of today are more open and accepting of us. Which is weird to type because why wouldn’t they?? I guess my mind is light-years away from the average minority but I’m tired of the OVERALL victim complex, though I am fully aware racism, true hatred, exists.
People often put race, gender, etc. ahead of real potential. And that goes both ways: One — the company that wants to appear “open-minded.” Two — the company who only wants a white male boys club in the office.
But my main problem with certain programs/protective laws is that if we keep having them it makes people stay separate. There is no equal playing field and in turn bitterness ensues from people who say, “Well so and so got that job because they were black.” Or “I HAD to hire so and so because they were black.” And I don’t know about you, but I would HATE working in such an environment if I was that so and so everyone didn’t really want there…