Choice?

[NWScouter]

A columnist in the Seattle PI made interesting point this weekend. One of the arguments against granting civil rights protections for sexual orientation is that some people say that sexual preference is a choice and if it is a choice then there should not be any protection for your choice. He noted that we do grant protection for a persons choice religion. What do you think?

[NWScouter]

here is the column: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/210937_shapley06.html

[Hunt]

The argument has some bite, but it proves too much. Thus, the writer says: "If it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of which ideology one chooses to follow or which god one chooses to worship, it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of whom one chooses to love."

If one chooses to love three wives? A minor? Obviously, at some point society has to decide whether "voluntary" behavior is harmful to society as a whole--thus, laws against such "choices" as using certain drugs, or limiting gambling or prostitution. Our Bill of Rights creates certain protected zones--like religion and race--the whole issue here is whether sexual orientation should be one of these or not. The editorial writer assumes that it should be, whether it's a choice or not, but the law doesn't protect other choices--for example, in most places, at least, it's OK to discriminate in housing against people based on their job--ie, some rental properties won't rent to lawyers. That's a choice too, but it's not a protected zone.

[eisely]

Not renting to lawyers --- now that is what I call justice. I hear that some doctors refuse to take lawyers as patients too. Maybe the automobile manufacturers should refuse to sell cars to lawyers.

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey now, enough lawyer bashing, remember when you outlaw lawyers, only outlaws will have lawyers ............ wait, isnt that the way its supposed to be?

[eisely]

As painful as it is to admit it, lawyers are occasionally necessary. Nevertheless, I can't get enough lawyer bashing.

[nldscout]

Just remeber what they say, The only good things about a communist government is that the first thing they do is shoot all the lawyers.

[NJCubScouter]

Ahem.

 

Leaving the lawyer-bashing aside...

 

I think the article in question shares a flaw that many of the posts in the "Issues and Politics" forum have; that is, it contains a flawed analogy. Hunt has pointed out the flaw, which is that the law does not contain legal protections for EVERY choice. The fact that it does protect at least one choice (religion) does not mean that it must protect every other choice.

 

Or, put another way, I think if a state legislature is going to say that you cannot discriminate in employment, housing or public accommodation based on sexual orientation, it should be because the legislature thinks that is the right thing to do... or if the legislature chooses not to, because it thinks it is not the right thing to do. Unfortunately that is not the kind of thinking reflected by several of the people quoted in this article, or by the author himself. The question that preoccupies most of the people in this article is whether sexual orientation is "like" or "unlike" other things that are on the list of factors that you can't discriminate against. (That sentence was ungrammatical, but I'm tired.) I don't think sexual orientation needs to be "like" race, religion, gender or any other factor in order to be on the "list", except in the one respect that the legislature has decided that discrimination on that basis is wrong. It doesn't have to be "wrong" for exactly the same reason as everything else on the list.

 

(In case anyone isn't sure, I think laws like the one Washington is considering are a good idea. From what I can glean from the article, it looks exactly like the change New Jersey made to its anti-discrimination law in the early 90's. The legislature took the existing anti-discrimination statute, with the list that includes race, creed, color, religion, etc. etc. and simply added sexual orientation and a few other things to the list.)

[eisely]

nldscout,

 

I think the first reference to the idea of "killing all the lawyers" comes up in one of Shakespeare's plays. Which reminds me of another lawyer joke (with apologies to NJCubScouter).

 

What is 10,000 dead lawyers on the bottom of the sea?

 

A good start.

[NWScouter]

What I got from the article is not that all choices should be protected but that the argument that sexual preference is a choice, therefore we should not give civil rights protection to a choice because choices should not be protected, is false because we do protect some choices. Religion is just one of many choices we protect, union membership and political party affiliation in some situations are some others.

[ehcalum]

If I wanted to take over a small country or end a war, I would drop lawyers over the capital. If that didn't work, then I would provide the lawyers with parachutes. And as a final drastic measure: Spam bombs.

[KoreaScouter]

I think it's a safe assumption that there are no Law MB counselors among this crowd...

 

KS

[packsaddle]

I take the attorney thing very seriously. Any reservations I ever had were removed during the experience my family had after an uninsured drunk nearly killed them on their way to school one morning. If we had been left in the hands of the insurance company with no assistance from an attorney, our family would have been left in the same condition as our total-loss vehicle. The insurance company, ours, instantly became our adversary. We would have been twisting in the breeze from all the medical costs.

[acco40]

I agree with NJCubScouter. People often confuse "right and wrong" with "legal and illegal." Some state (or municipality?) just passed a law making it a crime to wear ones pants with their underwear showing (the proverbial low rider fad amongst some of our youth).

 

Where I live (Michigan) and a few other states are legally an "at will" employment state. Companies may fire employees "for any or no reason" and the flip side (which many don't really think about) is that employees may resign for any or no reason. A company recently decided to fire any employee who has traces of tobacco in their system. That is, for them, it is cause for dismissal if one smokes not only on the job, but at home. Many don't like it, but it is legal in my state(oops, the state with which I reside).

 

Personally, I feel banning employment or BSA membership due to sexual orientation is wrong - but not in a legal sense.

 

For years, people have tried to "justify" homosexuality stating that it is not a "choice" and conversely, others have tried to condemn it believing that it is a choice. Behavior is alway a choice, feelings are not. Regardless, while an interesting scientific question, the "answer" should not really influence the legality issues.

[packsaddle]

acco40, here's a link that identifies the state:

http://www.thebreeze.org/opinion/houseed.shtml

The cartoon itself is worth a look.

 

Regarding the question of choice, there is some evidence that the genotype is at least partially involved. But as with all behavoirs, science is a long way from providing a complete answer. I also agree with NJ on this.