Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 271 to 285 of 285

Thread: Elephant in the room?

  1. #271
    RedEd, there are a number of protected classes that are based upon behavior. The most obvious one based on the current discussion is religion. Religion is not an inherent characteristic, the religion one choses to practice is a chosen behavior. And (with some minor exceptions based upon conflicts with other laws) one cannot be discriminated against based upon that chosen behavior.

  2. #272
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On the course...
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringsHusker View Post
    RedEd, there are a number of protected classes that are based upon behavior. The most obvious one based on the current discussion is religion. Religion is not an inherent characteristic, the religion one choses to practice is a chosen behavior. And (with some minor exceptions based upon conflicts with other laws) one cannot be discriminated against based upon that chosen behavior.

    Actually, that's not correct. Other than religion (which requires a showing of a "sincerely held" belief), there are no other protected classes based upon one's behavior.

    What some find troubling about sexual preference protection is that many of the laws that have been enacted at the state and local level do not require the individual to demonstrate some level of commitment to a given lifestyle; theoretically, a person could have a one-time experience and then turn around and claim protection. In that regard, these types of ordinances are very different than existing anti-discrimination laws.

  3. #273
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Copperas Cove, TX
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie-Husker View Post
    What some find troubling about sexual preference protection is that many of the laws that have been enacted at the state and local level do not require the individual to demonstrate some level of commitment to a given lifestyle; theoretically, a person could have a one-time experience and then turn around and claim protection. In that regard, these types of ordinances are very different than existing anti-discrimination laws.
    ...How many people do you know would hop the fence for a day to claim that protection? Would you?

  4. #274
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On the course...
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by carlfense View Post
    ...How many people do you know would hop the fence for a day to claim that protection? Would you?
    Not at all, but that wasn't really my point. I help employers deal with harassment and discrimination issues all the time. Not surprisingly, there are many people out there who file baseless discrimination claims after an adverse employment action. I think what concerns some people is that many of these laws would allow a person to essentially "opt in" to a protected class and then assert that the employer was aware of his/her membership in that class. I guess my point is that laws designed to "protect" need to be carefully considered because of the potential for abuse...

  5. #275
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Copperas Cove, TX
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie-Husker View Post
    I guess my point is that laws designed to "protect" need to be carefully considered because of the potential for abuse...
    Good point. However, for every abuse of that system I'm willing to bet there are a lot more instances that exemplify the reason why those laws are in place. No matter what the law is, there will be people who abuse it. Always.

  6. #276
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    947
    My last thought on this issue occurred today. Would Liberty University be a good fit for Ron Brown?
    He would get all the backing he is looking for but not the Press he might be looking for.
    I think he knows someone there.

  7. #277
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Howlin Wolf View Post
    My last thought on this issue occurred today. Would Liberty University be a good fit for Ron Brown?
    He would get all the backing he is looking for but not the Press he might be looking for.
    I think he knows someone there.
    I agree with you...I've said he should go off to a private/christian school and do his coaching/preaching there. Turner Gill wouldn't mind.

  8. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie-Husker View Post
    Actually, that's not correct. Other than religion (which requires a showing of a "sincerely held" belief), there are no other protected classes based upon one's behavior.

    What some find troubling about sexual preference protection is that many of the laws that have been enacted at the state and local level do not require the individual to demonstrate some level of commitment to a given lifestyle; theoretically, a person could have a one-time experience and then turn around and claim protection. In that regard, these types of ordinances are very different than existing anti-discrimination laws.
    We may be on different wavelengths here, but there are most certainly other classes that are based on choices, not inherent characteristics, that receive legislative protection (not Constitutional protection) against discrimination. In certain states (and probably cities, although I am not specifically aware of any) certain classes of jobs receive legislative protection against discrimination. There are laws protecting against discrimination based on union membership (and more recently against choosing to not join a union). There are laws against discrimination based on membership in fraternal organizations, such as the Freemasons. I could go on.

  9. #279
    Scout Team
    DuckTownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    4,391
    Anybody read Orwell's Animal Farm? Once everyone is protected, nobody is.

    We started treating women with equal rights. Then minorities. Then religion. Then gays. Then who knows what.

    The problem is that it's an ever-deepening circle. Once you define a protected class, you immediately have to redefine those who aren't in that class as well. We've created so many protected classes, it's damn ridiculous.

    The only reasons for creating those classes is to fight discrimination, which is really the main issue. Stamp out discrimination instead of creating these "band aid" rules for fixing the symptoms.

  10. #280
    Junior Varsity
    The Big Red Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    5,683
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    Anybody read Orwell's Animal Farm? Once everyone is protected, nobody is.

    We started treating women with equal rights. Then minorities. Then religion. Then gays. Then who knows what.

    The problem is that it's an ever-deepening circle. Once you define a protected class, you immediately have to redefine those who aren't in that class as well. We've created so many protected classes, it's damn ridiculous.

    The only reasons for creating those classes is to fight discrimination, which is really the main issue. Stamp out discrimination instead of creating these "band aid" rules for fixing the symptoms.
    Yeah, that pesky Civil Rights Act wasn't really needed. No need for the 13th, 15th or 19th Amendments either. All you have to do to "stamp out" discrimination is do what..wish it away?
    ~Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.~
    J. Lebowski

  11. #281
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    Anybody read Orwell's Animal Farm? Once everyone is protected, nobody is.

    We started treating women with equal rights. Then minorities. Then religion. Then gays. Then who knows what.

    The problem is that it's an ever-deepening circle. Once you define a protected class, you immediately have to redefine those who aren't in that class as well. We've created so many protected classes, it's damn ridiculous.

    The only reasons for creating those classes is to fight discrimination, which is really the main issue. Stamp out discrimination instead of creating these "band aid" rules for fixing the symptoms.
    It's all women's fault.

  12. #282
    All Big 10
    huskernut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, CO
    Posts
    18,537
    Quote Originally Posted by DuckTownHusker View Post
    Anybody read Orwell's Animal Farm? Once everyone is protected, nobody is.

    We started treating women with equal rights. Then minorities. Then religion. Then gays. Then who knows what.

    The problem is that it's an ever-deepening circle. Once you define a protected class,
    you immediately have to redefine those who aren't in that class as well. We've created so many protected classes, it's damn ridiculous.

    ...
    You make it sound like treating women and other people "with equal rights" is a bad thing. Do you really think it was wrong to give women the vote? How about blacks? Should their right to vote have been created by the Voting Rights Act, or should we have pretended that they weren't being systematically excluded from voting because of their skin color?


    The only reasons for creating those classes is to fight discrimination, which is really the main issue. Stamp out discrimination instead of creating these "band aid" rules for fixing the symptoms.
    Then the Omaha ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation is a good thing, right?
    "It doesn't matter where you start or how people perceive you now or what your potential is. ... It's going to be how this football team comes together and meets the challenges ... I like our potential, but there's a lot of teams that like their potential. It's going to be how we put things together, how we grow and how we come together as a team. It's not going to be the best collection of talent, it's going to be the best team. ...." - Bo Pelini, Big 10 Media Days, 2014

  13. #283
    Administrator
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    21,805
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Red Lebowski View Post
    Yeah, that pesky Civil Rights Act wasn't really needed. No need for the 13th, 15th or 19th Amendments either. All you have to do to "stamp out" discrimination is do what..wish it away?
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    It's all women's fault.
    Quote Originally Posted by huskernut View Post
    You make it sound like treating women and other people "with equal rights" is a bad thing. Do you really think it was wrong to give women the vote? How about blacks? Should their right to vote have been created by the Voting Rights Act, or should we have pretended that they weren't being systematically excluded from voting because of their skin color?



    Then the Omaha ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation is a good thing, right?
    I see his point. Human race has always put people in groups. That has caused groups to be treated differently for what ever reason. If we as a human race can just understand we are all humans and need to get along the world will be a much better place.


    Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!



    Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
    "I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)


  14. #284
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    947
    Quote: " It's all women's fault."


    And if God not created Woman, we would be up to our butts in guys Ron Brown doesn't approve of--well so to speak

  15. #285
    Guest

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On the course...
    Posts
    698
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringsHusker View Post
    We may be on different wavelengths here, but there are most certainly other classes that are based on choices, not inherent characteristics, that receive legislative protection (not Constitutional protection) against discrimination. In certain states (and probably cities, although I am not specifically aware of any) certain classes of jobs receive legislative protection against discrimination. There are laws protecting against discrimination based on union membership (and more recently against choosing to not join a union). There are laws against discrimination based on membership in fraternal organizations, such as the Freemasons. I could go on.
    Actually, that's not correct. Other than religion (which has a high standard), there is no legal protection against discrimination on the basis of a behavior or lifestyle choice. With one exception, the examples you gave are laws that prohibit retaliation against an individual (of any race, gender, religion, etc.) who engages in certain protected activity - in the case of unions, for example, the government has decided that we should promote the "rights" of workers to engage in collective activity; thus, it is illegal to retaliate against an individual because he/she belongs to a union, attempts to organize a union, etc. Regardless of one's views on such laws, all anti-retaliation statutes differ greatly from protected class status insofar as they only protect activity in the workplace (i.e., joining a union, blowing the whistle on unsafe work areas, etc.). The distinction is between a "protected class" (inate characteristics which we bring into the workplace) versus protected activity (activities we engage in at work). Very different, but easily confused. Bottom line, there are no other anti-discrimination laws that are based on behavior (i.e., because of my lifestyle choices outside of work, I am protected from discrimination at my work). Some see this as a potential problem with respect to sexual preference protection...

    I have never heard of any law related to Free Masons or other fraternal organizations, but would love to learn more about it if you have a link.







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •