Thread: Are LGBT+ rights, discrimination different? Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000714
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
This has been discussed on many threads, but I still find myself wondering if maybe gay, bi, trans, etc., rights and the discrimination of such persons are different than the rights to equality and justice for racial groups and ethnicities, for the sexes, for religions, and for any other groups that have experienced discrimination. The difference most often mentioned is that people can hide their sexual orientation or gender identity much more easily than anyone can hide their race or sex. But I think the differences go further than that, and I wonder whether or not that should influence policy.
To clarify, I like to think of myself as an enthusiastic supporter for LGBT+ rights, being queer myself, right down to the ability of the government to require for-profit businesses to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples getting married and allow trans people to use the lavatory that aligns with their gender identity. But I feel the need to discuss the differences between rights for different groups, not only because, for example, quite a few African Americans, even those that support gay rights, feel offended when the gay rights movement is talked about being "just like" the US Civil Rights Movement. I also wonder whether criticisms of Western groups promoting gay rights in the rest of the world as being neocolonial or imperialist are more than just attempts by authoritarian leaders in Africa, Russia, etc., to solidify their power by scapegoating the liberal West.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
LGBT+ rights v. colour discrimination is different in some ways. The ability to hide is one. Another is that an LGBT+ Britain is still a Britain. Colour is other first. Colour means lower pay. Colour means lesser human.
LGBT+ means broken human.
LGBT+ means going to Hell!
There are differences and overlaps. Discrimination is horrible either way.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The UN Declaration of Human Rights is applicable to all by virtue of someone's humanity.
Those who want to carry on discriminating against gays are violating Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 16, 19, 22, 23, and 27. IANAL, and there may well be others.
These are basic, fundamental rights. If someone wants to deny another person some or all of those rights in civil society, then ... yes, they're wrong and should be challenged at every turn.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Colour is other first. Colour means lower pay. Colour means lesser human.
LGBT+ means broken human.
And as well as colour being visually other and often culturally other, it's other in a deeply fundamental sense.
Straight couples have gay kids all the time. White couples don't find out one day that their kid turned out Black.*
*Yes, families adopt kids that look different from them. Yes, interracial families often have some kids that look mostly like mum and some that look mostly like dad. And yes, there's the occasional genetic surprise (black parents can have white kids if there's a white ancestor somewhere up each tree.)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
ISTM there are two slightly different questions here: 1) Is anti-gay discrimination, in itself, as bad as anti-Black discrimination, and 2) Has the experience of gay people in America been as bad as the experience of Black people?
1) could be rephrased as 'Is it better to be kicked off the bus for being gay than for being Black?', to which the answer is quite obviously No.
Btw, I'm not convinced that 'you can pretend not to be gay' makes things better; all it's saying is that anti-gay prejudice is harder to enforce.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Worth pointing out that many LGBT people cannot hide, particularly trans people who struggle to 'pass' as their gender. Many many LGBT people are visibly LGBT. Equally skin colour varies and you can get people of colour who are as light-skinned as darker white people and can 'pass' as white.
People of colour, LGB, and trans people* all experience oppression of their sphere of oppression. Sometimes those spheres intersect and people who are all three with experience them differently to people who only experience one. Hence, intersectional feminism. They are separate spheres of oppression, but often intersect, and are equal in terms of the 'weight' of their oppression. Society is as structurally homophobic and transphobic as it is racist.
*LGB and T are separated in terms of spheres of oppression just because people can be one, both, or neither.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
AFAIK, LGBT as an identity, or a set of identities (at least as understood by the wider society), didn't really exist in Britain until the late 19th c. There were certain acts that could be theologically or legally discriminated against, but not sexual orientations. as such.
But for blackness, it seems to have been the other way around; to the white gaze (but not so much to Africans themselves), black 'identity' existed as a visible thing and was discriminated against. It then became associated with particular acts. The acts themselves weren't discriminated against. Indeed, the economic demand for hewers of wood and drawers of water is what helped to make blackness a convenient theological and legal problem, as per the curse of Ham. Any other negative 'black' qualities also usefully set black people apart from white people, and hence served the economic and social status quo.
If the economic usefulness of black people in the past helped to create racial discrimination, ISTM that some conservatives have discriminated against LGBT people for the opposite reason; there's a fear that LGBT rights could undermine the socially beneficial (and hence the economically useful) cohesive structures of the heterosexual marriage and family. LGBT distinctiveness was (or is) seen as a challenge, not a benefit to the status quo.
To be fair to these conservatives, there are indeed quite a few modern, liberal people who see marriage as anachronistic and repressive and do hope it declines. But they may nevertheless welcome SSM as an anti-discriminatory measure. I can't think of a comparative liberal discourse with regard to black rights.
As for LGBT people 'going to hell', googling suggests that the eternal destiny of black people is also a subject of debate, so on this topic the two groups might have some fruitful similarities. OTOH, is there an LGBT equivalent to the bullish Nation of Islam, or the sectarian anti-white movements?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM there are two slightly different questions here: 1) Is anti-gay discrimination, in itself, as bad as anti-Black discrimination,
As bad as in as wrong to do? Then Yes.
As bad as as in in effect? I don't want to quantify evil.
However, a white person is more likely to have an LGBT+ neighbour than a black one. Because gay doesn't recognise income level or community boundaries, but race does. This is why marriage equality has made forward strides in a time where fear of Other has turned other progress backwards.
quote:
and 2) Has the experience of gay people in America been as bad as the experience of Black people?
Why just America?
quote:
Btw, I'm not convinced that 'you can pretend not to be gay' makes things better; all it's saying is that anti-gay prejudice is harder to enforce.
Where has said anything about "better"? I am saying that they are different.
As Pomona points out, there is no clean border for everyone.
And being gay in the Black community is worse than being gay in the white community.
Being black in the gay community is not a complete picnic either.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Here's the other big difference between gay rights and civil rights for oppressed races, women, etc. - honest and open sexual and romantic relationships, marriage and building a family with someone you love and are attracted to, etc., are indeed human rights, but I do not think that they are human rights that are as fundamental as the right to not be oppressed merely because of the color of your skin, shape of your face, or genitalia you were born with. Just as people have a hierarchy of needs (the necessities of survival and personal safety are higher priorities than professional, educational, social, and sexual fulfillment), I think there are a hierarchy of rights (discrimination because of someone's body is a more pressing societal problem than discrimination over romantic and sexual behavior that may people may still have a fundamental right to). However, the means of discrimination matter - violence against and imprisonment of gays for their behavior is a more pressing societal problem than barriers to equality in employment or income for women and oppressed races.
Of course queer people of color, poor queer people of all races, etc., face multiple forms of oppression that operate synergistically against them. And trans people - especially trans people of marginalized races, ethnicities, and classes - are among the most oppressed people, particular in the threat of bodily harm they face, in modern Western society (and most other societies aside from a few traditional ones where trans people's differences are celebrated in at least a limited way).
I'm an affluent white cisgender gay male living in an affluent neighborhood in a jurisdiction with very liberal laws. There are people out there who think I should be killed, beaten, imprisoned, or institutionalized and others who think children (and polite public discourse in general) should be protected from discussion of relationships like mine or even from the discussion of the existence of people like me. But the threats I face, although real, are so remote that to identify more with oppression than with privilege seems ludicrous. I know that oppressed people often oppress others. But the scales of my life are much, much more tipped towards the side of privilege.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Here's the other big difference between gay rights and civil rights for oppressed races, women, etc. - honest and open sexual and romantic relationships, marriage and building a family with someone you love and are attracted to, etc., are indeed human rights, but I do not think that they are human rights that are as fundamental as the right to not be oppressed merely because of the color of your skin ...people have a hierarchy of needs (the necessities of survival and personal safety are higher priorities than professional, educational, social, and sexual fulfillment) ...
Humans are social animals, and suffer when isolated from others. Viktor Frankl wrote about how survival in the concentration camps depended on finding meaning and purpose, not just the bare needs of existence. Human beings are willing to die for their religion, which is supposedly lower on the hierarchy of needs than e.g. food and water.
Furthermore, many people have been denied "honest and open sexual and romantic relationships, marriage and building a family with someone you love" precisely because of the colour of their skin:
quote:
... Back in 1860, marriage was a civil right and a legal contract, available only to free people. Male slaves had no paternal rights and female slaves were recognized as mothers only to the extent that their status doomed their children’s fate to servitude in perpetuity. To be sure, most slaves did all that they could to protect, sustain and nurture their loved ones. Freedom and the love of family are the most abiding themes that dominate the hundreds of published narratives written by former slaves.
Though slaves could not marry legally, they were allowed to do so by custom with the permission of their owners — and most did. But the wedding vows they recited promised not “until death do us part,” but “until distance” — or, as one black minister bluntly put it, “the white man” — “do us part.” And couples were not entitled to live under the same roof, as each spouse could have a different owner, miles apart. All slaves dealt with the threat of forcible separation; untold numbers experienced it first-hand. ...
Putting an Antebellum Myth to Rest
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why just America?
Because the OP referred specifically to the Civil Rights movement and whether comparisons to gay rights are appropriate.
quote:
quote:
Btw, I'm not convinced that 'you can pretend not to be gay' makes things better; all it's saying is that anti-gay prejudice is harder to enforce.
Where has said anything about "better"? I am saying that they are different.
The problem is that when people say X is like Y, and X and Y have a moral dimension, people tend to interpret that as implying morally similar even if morality isn't the basis of the comparison.
So Corbynistas are wary of comparisons between Corbyn and Trump even if the basis of the comparison is that they both came from nowhere on a tide of grassroots support.
Therefore if people object to comparisons between gay rights and the Civil Rights movement, it seems likely that there is an element of moral comparison that they object to.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I don't think human rights are hierarchical. They spring forth from our common humanity.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I don't think human rights are hierarchical. They spring forth from our common humanity.
This.
When we're talking about comparing rights, I don't see "rights of" but "rights to."
Do women have more of a right to walk down the street unharassed than LGBT+ people do? No. They all have the right to walk down the street unharassed.
Do people of color have more of a right to get and keep a job than LGBT+ folks do? No. They all have a right to get and keep a job.
And so forth.
[ 04. August 2017, 13:29: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This has been discussed on many threads, but I still find myself wondering if maybe gay, bi, trans, etc., rights and the discrimination of such persons are different than the rights to equality and justice for racial groups and ethnicities, for the sexes, for religions, and for any other groups that have experienced discrimination. The difference most often mentioned is that people can hide their sexual orientation or gender identity much more easily than anyone can hide their race or sex. But I think the differences go further than that, and I wonder whether or not that should influence policy.
Religious discrimination would seem to be the closest match to anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination, largely for the reasons you've delineated (self-closeting is easier, people are sometimes disowned by family when they "come out" with a new religious orientation, etc.) yet it seems to be the least discussed comparison. Despite being mentioned explicitly in the OP, I don't think anyone's really picked it up. Perhaps because it's a close enough match that it's difficult for folks to come up with reasons why there's no comparison between the two.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why just America?
Because the OP referred specifically to the Civil Rights movement and whether comparisons to gay rights are appropriate.
sigh UK Civil Rights. I'll grant that in America it is more often referenced.
quote:
The problem is that when people say X is like Y, and X and Y have a moral dimension, people tend to interpret that as implying morally similar even if morality isn't the basis of the comparison.
You can assume whatever you wish. I am telling you that I, personally, do not think experiencing one form of oppression better or worse than another. And that it is possible to assign moral components without weighing the values
quote:
Therefore if people object to comparisons between gay rights and the Civil Rights movement, it seems likely that there is an element of moral comparison that they object to.
Some people do, that does not mean everyone does. This is multi-faceted.
Just like many white people have a difficult time seeing the full picture of what a black person experiences, so to do many straight, black people fail to completely appreciate what LGBT+ experience.
Most everyone feels their experience to be more real, intense, important; if for no other reason than that they can feel what they experience, but not what other people do.
LGBT+ people have been abused, killed, etc. for a long time. But they were not enslaved, hung from trees with impunity, etc. LGBT+ struggles have been more hidden, those of black people writ large upon the world stage. So, for the average black person, the gay movement claiming kinship is hard to appreciate. This doesn't inherently imply an imbalance of moral weight.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Religious discrimination would seem to be the closest match to anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination, largely for the reasons you've delineated (self-closeting is easier, people are sometimes disowned by family when they "come out" with a new religious orientation, etc.) yet it seems to be the least discussed comparison. Despite being mentioned explicitly in the OP, I don't think anyone's really picked it up. Perhaps because it's a close enough match that it's difficult for folks to come up with reasons why there's no comparison between the two.
Two reasons: #1 - if you compare religion to sexual orientation, the homophobes will say, 'Ah, so you could change your orientation the same way you change your religion." #2 - the homophobes will say there's only one correct religion/orientation anyway, all the rest are false gods/perversions.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... So, for the average black person, the gay movement claiming kinship is hard to appreciate. This doesn't inherently imply an imbalance of moral weight.
There's also the sad truth that the status - or whatever you want to call it, sorry, I'm crap at the social sciences - of an average white gay or lesbian person has improved far more in our part of the world over the last few decades than that of the average straight black person.
Black Lives Matter has been challenging other progressive groups to be more racially inclusive. This led to some nasty public spats between the local Women's March organizers, Pride, and BLM, but also hopefully some enlightenment. It's all about intersectionality now, and recognizing that e.g. a black lesbian may consider police violence and sexism to be bigger problems than homophobia, compared to a white gay man.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Black Lives Matter has been challenging other progressive groups to be more racially inclusive. This led to some nasty public spats between the local Women's March organizers, Pride, and BLM, but also hopefully some enlightenment.
One would think that marginalised groups would have sympathy for each other. Sasly this is not the case.
quote:
It's all about intersectionality now, and recognizing that e.g. a black lesbian may consider police violence and sexism to be bigger problems than homophobia, compared to a white gay man.
When it comes to who is most likely to be beaten by the police, always bet on black.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Religious discrimination would seem to be the closest match to anti-gay or anti-trans discrimination, largely for the reasons you've delineated (self-closeting is easier, people are sometimes disowned by family when they "come out" with a new religious orientation, etc.) yet it seems to be the least discussed comparison. Despite being mentioned explicitly in the OP, I don't think anyone's really picked it up. Perhaps because it's a close enough match that it's difficult for folks to come up with reasons why there's no comparison between the two.
Actually, my thought is that religious discrimination is not like the others listed, for two reasons:
1. In a free country, religion is a choice in a way the others are not;
2. Not discriminating against the other groups, in general and with the exception of sex, doesn't require me to do anything; it requires me not to do something. But not discriminating against religious people can often require me to do something, e.g. ensure there is a halal option if organising something with food for Muslims.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You can assume whatever you wish. I am telling you that I, personally [...]
I don't doubt it. But the OP was about people in general rather than lilBuddha in particular.
[ 05. August 2017, 17:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But not discriminating against religious people can often require me to do something, e.g. ensure there is a halal option if organising something with food for Muslims.
Because no religious people are vegetarian. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sorry, you'll have to unpack that one for me.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Sorry, you'll have to unpack that one for me.
One can discriminate against Muslims and still cater to special dietary needs.
A cynic might even think it is already done.
[ 05. August 2017, 20:33: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
One can hate a group of people but still want to take their money by selling them something they want. "It's all green" as some vendors have said about the money of despised people groups.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Sorry, you'll have to unpack that one for me.
One can discriminate against Muslims and still cater to special dietary needs.
A cynic might even think it is already done.
... Still not seeing how that refutes the point I was making ...
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When it comes to who is most likely to be beaten by the police, always bet on black.
Alas, in Canada, you can bet on red too. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
2. Not discriminating against the other groups, in general and with the exception of sex, doesn't require me to do anything; it requires me not to do something. But not discriminating against religious people can often require me to do something, e.g. ensure there is a halal option if organising something with food for Muslims.
[/QB]
Musicians who often sing at weddings, wedding photographers, wedding planners, and other people whose job often involves being part of a wedding ceremony but who are not religious ministers would argue that anti-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation require them to do something - ie, be part of a same-sex wedding - that they do not want to do. People who make custom cakes from scratch and custom flower arrangements for weddings may not be required to be present at the wedding ceremony per se, but might still feel that they are required to use their creative skills in order to reflect the unique characteristics and personalities of a couple, of which their genders are possibly only a small part but a part nevertheless.
If any of these people engaged in the market for profit tried to deny services to an interracial couple, I think the law should allow them to have the pants sued off of them. Anyone who sells standardized cakes and floral arrangements with minimal customization, such as plastic figurines in bridal gowns or tuxedos or simple text like "Congratulations Jane and Amy!" probably should be allowed to be sued too. But people who have to take part in a ceremony (or put lots of effort into planning the details) or contribute their creative talents to create a custom product reflecting and celebrating a couple...I'm afraid of the slippery slope of not allowing them to be sued, especially as for profit businesses, but I still feel there is something different than objections over an interracial couple.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Sorry, you'll have to unpack that one for me.
One can discriminate against Muslims and still cater to special dietary needs.
A cynic might even think it is already done.
... Still not seeing how that refutes the point I was making ...
Scenario 1: you're doing the church catering. There'll be some vegetarians present. You cater for them.
Scenario 2: you're doing the church catering. There'll be some vegetarians present. There'll also be some Muslims present. You cater for the vegetarians, and accidentally cater for the Muslims at the same time without even having to consider Halal.
It's not difficult. Unless you're cooking for Orthodox Jews. Just serve a vegetarian option. Or just a vegetarian meal everyone can enjoy.
Sheesh.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Sheesh yourself. Not to mention seekh and doner.
All you've shown is that non-discrimination against Muslims is comparable to non-discrimination against vegetarians*, in that both impose an obligation on me to do things. In order not to discriminate against vegetarians I have to provide a vegetarian option, and in order not to discriminate against Muslims I have to provide a halal option, which may or may not be identical to the vegetarian option.
Whereas non-discrimination against gay people, Blacks and women generally doesn't require me to do a specific thing. (The only specific obligations I can think of relating to women would be anything arising from maternity**.)
OK let me use another example. My wife's job requires her to work occasional weekends and Bank Holidays. She does not want to work Good Friday or Easter Sunday for religious reasons. Accommodating this request imposes an obligation on whoever draws up the rota, and also has a slight effect on the probable working patterns of people who don't claim a religious exemption.
But non-discrimination against Black or gay members of staff wouldn't create that kind of extra work. It should strictly speaking create less work, in that a rota that treats Black and White staff equally would have fewer underlying rules than one that treats them differently.
* Which isn't a massive surprise given that on some schema the two would both fall under the umbrella of 'deeply held philosophical position'.
** And I think under UK law 'parenting issues' are a separate category from 'sex' anyway.
[ 06. August 2017, 06:40: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Your view of what 'work' is clearly differs from mine. I don't see it as 'work' to extend the offer of a vegetarian option *that I was already providing* to Muslims (or Hindus, Sikhs).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Yes, sometimes you can discharge your obligation to one group by the same act by which you discharge your obligation to another group. That doesn't mean the obligation doesn't exist.
If your point is just that my original example was poorly chosen inasmuch as it's possible to nitpick with it, then I accept the criticism, and that's why I gave a different example. Otherwise I'm still in the dark as to what your actual objection is.
To try to drag this back to relevance: I agree with Soror Magna's post earlier. Whenever rights are granted to gay people, some religious groups push back and say 'Yes but what about our rights', as though LGBT and religious rights mirrored each other. I don't think they do.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, yes, it's a bit nitpicky. You said quote:
But not discriminating against religious people can often require me to do something, e.g. ensure there is a halal option if organising something with food for Muslims.
and my point was you'd already made provision for people in your own group that would encompass making provision for people outside your group.
"We'll provide vegetarian food for Christians, but not for Muslims because that requires me to do something" isn't a stellar piece of reasoning.
When the Torlets were younger, it was far easier to navigate public transport by strapping them to my body (backpack and sling) than use a pushchair. Then the Disability Discrimination Act came in, requiring public buildings and transport to be accessible. It wasn't aimed at parents with young children, but suddenly, it became a whole lot easier (and in some cases merely possible) to get in and around town.
You could argue that the DDA isn't there for me, or other parents of young children. But it incidentally made it better for that group too. There was no obligation laid down to do "more" to include them.
Not catering for other faith groups would involve actively doing less. Which strikes me as being just a little churlish.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
But you assume that I'm making provision for vegetarians. Which is charitable of you, but not specified by the example I gave.
I honestly don't see how else I can express this. My contention is that some forms of non-discrimination impose positive obligations ('make provision for ...') and some merely impose negative obligations ('don't treat ... less favourably'). And that religious non-discrimination falls in the first category and LGBT in the second.
Do you disagree with this distinction? Or is it just the halal food example that you disagree with?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I mean, yes, of course I'm assuming you're making provision for vegetarians, because I'm assuming you're a decent human being who knows that some people are vegetarian and will need to be catered for, rather than having them turn up and them finding that they've nothing to eat.
I suppose my point is this: to include people who are outside doesn't take any particular effort, just a little bit of thought. We mostly do those things anyway to include people who are already inside our group. To do things deliberately in order to exclude the outsiders is a dick move.
It's simply easier to treat everyone as holding the same set of basic rights to fair treatment in the public space. Where Christans throw themselves at the martyrdom label, and get fancy lawyers to protect their 'rights' and lose their cases, it's almost always because they've deliberately gone out of their way to be utter dicks. Great witness, guys...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
So do you disagree with the distinction I'm making or not? If I'm going to be subjected to , "sheesh", "not exactly stellar reasoning", and other general points of sarcasm, it would be nice to know why.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Blimey, this is heavy weather...
quote:
But not discriminating against religious people can often require me to do something, e.g. ensure there is a halal option if organising something with food for Muslims.
In one sense, yes. Not discriminating against religious people can require you to do something. It requires you not to be a dick.
In almost every other sense, it's exactly the same as not discriminating against any other identifiable group. It requires you not to be a dick.
It strikes me that being a dick about stuff is actually more effort than not being a dick about it. So I suppose it depends on whether you see normal human decency as 'doing something'. I tend to look on it as a default position.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
It's entirely possible that you have a group of colleagues, none of whom are vegetarian, and if you all have an early start in the morning on some special occasion, you bring in a tray of hot bacon rolls, which are much appreciated by everyone.
Fine.
Now a new person joins your merry little band. If the new person is vegetarian, or Muslim, or Jewish, he's not going to want the bacon roll. Because you're not a dick, you're going to bring him something he can eat. Because he's not a dick, he's not going to complain about you having bacon.
And yes, not being a dick in this case takes a small amount of extra effort - namely the effort required to make one cheese roll.
[ 06. August 2017, 16:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Weighing the cost of effort of making (or just managing to say to the person behind the counter who's actually making that you need) a fried egg sandwich along with your bacon baps, against the ostracism and ill-feeling that'll ensue - because the new worker will think his team manager is a dick, and so will the rest of the team if they're decent people - is something else to consider.
You were making/buying breakfast anyway. Why be a dick about it?
[ 06. August 2017, 18:05: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Thank you, I believe I understand where you are coming from now.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Two reasons: #1 - if you compare religion to sexual orientation, the homophobes will say, 'Ah, so you could change your orientation the same way you change your religion."
They're going to say that anyway. More to the point they're going to try to get cute about the difference between "action" and "orientation" and pretend they don't care if you are [gay / Jewish] just so long as you have the decency not to act too [gay / Jewy]. If that's their position, make 'em stake it out explicitly; that their religious beliefs are just as frivolous and easy to change as sexual orientation.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
#2 - the homophobes will say there's only one correct religion/orientation anyway, all the rest are false gods/perversions.
Again, they say that anyway. If they want to embrace theocracy and launch a new Inquisition against the infidels (however defined), make 'em argue for that explicitly.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
All you've shown is that non-discrimination against Muslims is comparable to non-discrimination against vegetarians*, in that both impose an obligation on me to do things. In order not to discriminate against vegetarians I have to provide a vegetarian option, and in order not to discriminate against Muslims I have to provide a halal option, which may or may not be identical to the vegetarian option.
Perhaps think of it as basic good manners? And/or basic good business? (Depending on the situation.) There should at least be one or two things that each person can eat.
I looked up some catering info, and found "5 Tips for a Successful Corporate Lunch Event" (Rivers Edge Catering):
quote:
3. Be Ready with Vegetarian and Vegan Options
It’s now become the norm to have vegetarian and vegan food options at all events. That’s why we have developed vegetarian and vegan dishes that are just as appealing and delectable as the rest of our menu. You should also make sure to ask your guests about any other food allergies they might have. For example, if someone has a severe nut allergy, it might mean that nuts are avoided altogether in the dishes you select.
And "Food Catering Inter Multi Faith Events" (Multi Faiths):
quote:
Food Catering for multi faith or Public Events - Many groups have social gatherings where shared food and hospitality play an important part. A shared meal, announced as vegetarian, ensures that each community has some familiar food. Careful labelling of all dishes allows participants to explore new tastes without anxiety about accidentally eating foods not acceptable to them for religious reasons. It is a good idea to discuss food issues with your group or council and agree a basic set of guidelines.
If you are arranging an event which involves sharing of food, the following guidelines may be useful. It may be helpful to give a copy of them to the caterers for an event and have them available should anyone be interested to see them. Generally speaking, the best way to cater for a multi faith event so that the maximum number of people can share in the food is to make it fully vegetarian, with some vegan options, and to label each dish.
(The MultiFaith article is longer, with many interesting details.)
quote:
Whereas non-discrimination against gay people, Blacks and women generally doesn't require me to do a specific thing. (The only specific obligations I can think of relating to women would be anything arising from maternity**.)
It requires being inclusive, like using inclusive language.
quote:
OK let me use another example. My wife's job requires her to work occasional weekends and Bank Holidays. She does not want to work Good Friday or Easter Sunday for religious reasons. Accommodating this request imposes an obligation on whoever draws up the rota, and also has a slight effect on the probable working patterns of people who don't claim a religious exemption.
I worked in a large company that was a couple of blocks from a Catholic church. In my office, several of us were Christians (of various flavors), and we generally wanted to go to services. One or two people could manage a day off. The rest of us worked it out among ourselves, and took turns each going to church for half an hour or so. IIRC, that generally involved informally rescheduling our lunches.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0