"House approves ban on job bias against gays"

[iman]

I wonder what party the 184 votes against the bill came from?

 

[NineOfClubs]

Of course, if 35 republicans had not crossed over to vote for it, it would have failed.

Got to like the two party system!

 

[PSCGuy]

There was a modest amount of aisle crossing. Not much, but some. Keep in mind also a handful of Democrats voted Nay.

Well, let's see the Republicans filibuster ENDA in the Senate. Should be a blast to watch people defend hate.

 

[ZeroPoint84]

Well, let's see the Republicans filibuster ENDA in the Senate. Should be a blast to watch people defend hate.

yes, and then Bush has "vowed to veto the bill"... how can he possibly defend his decision to veto it, if he does??! ugh, the sooner he is out the better.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I wonder what party the 184 votes against the bill came from?

Of the 184 No votes, 25 came from Dem's.

8 Dem's and 6 Pug's did not vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml

 

[RandomAccess]

Of the 184 No votes, 25 came from Dem's.

8 Dem's and 6 Pug's did not vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml

Now, let's carry this to its logical conclusion. . . if 25 Democrats voted against then how many REPUBLICANS voted against it, and why? I'm sure they had oh-so-altruistic reasons.

Republicans can't be let-off-the-hook that easily. The GLBT community needs to know where the Republicans stand, so that self-respecting gays can vote accordingly.

This is over in this thread, post #54:

The 18 Dems that voted against HR 3685 Because they (or their districts) are too conservative:

Barrow (GA)
Berry (AR)
Cramer (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Davis (AL)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Lampson (TX)
Lipinski (IL)
Marshall (GA)
McIntyre (NC)
Melancon (LA)
Rahall (WV)
Ross (AR)
Shuler (NC)
Skelton (MO)
Tanner (TN)
Taylor (MS)


The 7 Dems that voted against HR 3685 because they didn't want to support a bill that did not include transgendered protection:

Clarke (NY)
Holt (NJ)
Michaud (ME)
Nadler (NY)
Towns (NY)
Velázquez (NY)
Weiner (NY)

 

[Glafna]

Sounds to me like it will be a very bitter fight. Both the Pro and Con sides have legitimate arguments.
For example, there may be many GLBT's who take advantage of it to get back at a previous employer.
But then there's the consideration of how much good it could do.

Again, seems like it will be a bitter fight, and I predict senators switching sides as it unfolds, and ground given on both sides, and many many protests if it gets passed and Bush veto's it.

 

[construct]

For example, there may be many GLBT's who take advantage of it to get back at a previous employer.

Yeah, that's one of the Republican talking points, Glafna. The fact is that this fear has not materialized in the states that have passed similar laws. There's no reason to think that there will be a spate of frivolous lawsuits if ENDA were to pass.

 

[Glafna]

But they still have a legitimate concern. There are probably women and minorities who take advantage of the laws that go in their favor, so why wouldn't there be GLBT's who do the same. I think that's although reasonable, it's unethical to pretty much state that the GLBT community are the only one's capable of doing that.

 

[RandomAccess]

But they still have a legitimate concern. There are probably women and minorities who take advantage of the laws that go in their favor, so why wouldn't there be GLBT's who do the same. I think that's although reasonable, it's unethical to pretty much state that the GLBT community are the only one's capable of doing that.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong: It isn't exclusive, it's inclusive. It puts gays (and all the others) on equal footing with the rest of the workforce. It doesn't place them above.

 

[construct]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong: It isn't exclusive, it's inclusive. It puts gays (and all the others) on equal footing with the rest of the workforce. It doesn't place them above.

Yeah, sorta-kinda. What it does is create a private right of action for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation parallel to the protections given to race, gender, etc.

 

[RandomAccess]

Yeah, sorta-kinda. What it does is create a private right of action for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation parallel to the protections given to race, gender, etc.

Technically, you're absolutely correct. By viewpoint, I think we may slightly disagree.

Okay, so we would join the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age crowd. Now, religion is a matter of choice, IMHO. So let's talk about the others. Outside of them, can you name a group of people, defined by who/what they are (not by what they choose or do) other than GLBTs?

I still say it's inclusive over exclusive.

 

[construct]

But they still have a legitimate concern. There are probably women and minorities who take advantage of the laws that go in their favor, so why wouldn't there be GLBT's who do the same. I think that's although reasonable, it's unethical to pretty much state that the GLBT community are the only one's capable of doing that.

The reason that the argument is not (really) legitimate is that these frivolous suits haven't proliferated in those states where that would be possible.

I understand what they're saying, but given the facts on the ground, the argument of hypothetical frivolous suits is a pretext for protecting the right of employers to discriminate unjustly on the basis of characteristics that have nothing to do with the job.

 

[construct]

Technically, you're absolutely correct. By viewpoint, I think we may slightly disagree.

Okay, so we would join the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age crowd. Now, religion is a matter of choice, IMHO. So let's talk about the others. Outside of them, can you name a group of people, defined by who/what they are (not by what they choose or do) other than GLBTs?

I still say it's inclusive over exclusive.

I'm not sure that we really disagree. Or maybe I don't really understand what you see as a disagreement. In any case, we seem to agree on the goals.

I am philosophically a social constructionist. (Note my user name.) As such, I see most (if not all) of those protected categories as social constructs. They are fluid, artificial, externally inscribed on people by the society in which we are embedded.

If the issue is "choice," for some people sexual orientation is experienced as a choice, but it isn't much of a choice for most of us. As politically inconvenient as this view may seem, I believe that it conforms to reported experience. But the same thing could be said of race. Think of all those literary story lines about black people passing as white back in the 1960s. That stuff wasn't made up out of racial paranoia. It was the racial analog of the gay closet.

Nevertheless however artificial sexual categories may be, one must begin political change by addressing the injustices that are actually present on their own terms, however ill-conceived those terms may be. One can't jump out of his own skin, and one can't disown his own history.

 

[RandomAccess]

^ Amen, brother.