Behavior-Based Discrimination?

Would someone please explain to me why or how sexual orientation is any different from hygenic orientation or dietary orientation or any other behaviorally-based orientation?

My point is simply this: Why should the government ever get in the business of protecting someone’s sexual behavior? Why not protect someone’s right to eat whatever they want or dress the way they want or not take a shower or brush their teeth?

What about all those people who have the slob gene or the gene that makes them fat?

Why are we not passing legislation to end the horrible discrimination happening against people who come to work not dressed in proper business attire or with yellow teeth and nasty breath?


Comments

  1. love the picture!

  2. kralmajales says

    Come on…it is not the same as hygiene or anything related to it.

    Do you feel that race, gender, age are all the same as hygience or anything else?

    The reason we feel that government should protect the rights of homosexuals to be free against discrimination in the workplace is because there are individuals who have fired people or not hired them upon learning of their sexual orientation…whether they are qualified, excellent employees or not.

    We could talk about whether discrimination should be legal versus any type or class of people, but we have come a long way since the same argument was made about women and minorities in the workplace.

    How can you not say the same about those discriminated against because of who they choose to love or have sex with?

  3. I beg to differ.

    “Do you feel that race, gender, age are all the same as hygience or anything else?”

    Do you feel that the way someone practices sexual activity is the same as their race, gender, age?

    Let’s tweak the language a little to show how ridiculous protecting “sexual orientation” is.

    “The reason we feel that government should protect the rights of obese people and slobs to be free against discrimination in the workplace is because there are individuals who have fired people or not hired them upon learning of their dietary and hygenic orientation…whether they are qualified, excellent employees or not.”

    “How can you not say the same about those discriminated against because of what they choose to eat or how they choose to dress or keep themselves?”

    Let’s focus on innate characteristics of human beings rather than their behavior(s). Race is not a behavior. Ethnicity is not a behavior. Let’s stop equating human sexual behavior with an inherent characteristic.

  4. Randall Holdridge says

    Well then, DSW, I take it that you would be comfortable with a law that permitted state agencies to refuse employment individuals on the basis of their heterosexuality.

    Since you see no reason that specific sexual behaviors should be protected under the law, you must be against Prop. 107, right?

    I’ve stayed off this thread because your initial post is so contemptible, but now you want to pretend that your position is logicaly or rationally sustainable. Sorry, but it’s just not; you want protection for yourself of rights and privileges you would deny to others who are not like you.

    I won’t go into your hygiene or obesity red herrings, but I do have the impression that in doing state business with, let’s say, a clerk in a public office who might be a homosexual, only a few of the clients are required to have sex with the clerk before receiving service; otherwise, the job of the clerk would be exhausting. 😉

Trackbacks

  1. […] Didn’t I recently post on this? As early as 1990, Chimene attempted to use the “dietary-orientation” argument to seek protection under the law. Unfortunately for Chimene, it didn’t hold enough weight on the scales of justice. But don’t be surprised if you start hearing this and hygenic-orientation in the years ahead.   […]

Leave a Reply