P-I: "Bellevue hit with bias complaint against gay workers"
They seek same health benefits that married couples receiveThis raises a good point. Why should an employee who happens to be married receive more benefits than an employee who isn't married? Shouldn't an employee's compensation be a function only of the work performed and not a function of the employee's personal life? And why should employers be paying any health coverage for their employees in the first place? Why not just compensate employees with cash and let them purchase health insurance on the open market like they do with homeowners' insurance and automobile insurance?
With any luck this suit could lead to the unwinding of some of the less sensible traditions in workplace compensation.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 18, 2007 10:05 AM | Email ThisWhy should employer A pay more (or less) for the same work as employer B?
Clearly, this is a matter of benefits... and if these clowns don't like the benefits where they're working, then they can quit and go work somewhere else.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:06 AMThis should lead to interesting questions on the tax code. Let's see if the courts want to go there.
Posted by: Ken on April 18, 2007 10:11 AMBest places to retire young:
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/102845/best-places-to-retire-young&.pf=retirement
If the employer simply pays cash, then the employee is taxed on this money, and the employer pays additional payroll taxes for social security (6.20%), medicare (1.45%), and unemployment (anywhere from 1% to over 4%) on this money.
Same thing applies to health benefits for domestic partners of either gender, same gender "spouses", or children of any of these who are not also children of the employee. The employee can be hit with combined income/FICA taxes of over 30% on the costs of these benefits, and the employer paying as much as 10% or more in FICA/unemployment taxes on these benefits as well.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 18, 2007 11:15 AMStefan's comments unwittingly reveal the moral blindness gap that prevents "libertarians" from protecting our freedom. He sees some merit in this discrimination case.
More particularly thehim, while deprecatory of France, unveils the anti-family animus that drives French multiculturalism. He calls a man who, following the best traditions of every civilized culture in history, has built a FAMILY on love, "dumb bastard."
The culture of selfishness is the culture of death. The society that fails to recognize the natural family as the center of the culture of life begins a process of dehuminization that leaves man desperate, empty, unfulfilled and unable to escape the conscious meaninglessness of his own existance.
I want, I want... he says, but when he acquires the object of his lust it is empty.
He buys a gun, he steal a car, he tries to run but he won't get far.
Posted by: Doug Parris on April 18, 2007 11:16 AMIf an employer wants to offer health care, of whatever quality, as part of an overall compensation package, they can do that, but the empolyee could also choose to take an equivalent amount of cash if he thought he could get a deal that was better for him personally on his own. With a market like that for individual plans, there would be competition, with lots of different packages at lots of different prices.
Oh, and get rid of the government mandates that all health coverage must offer a certain list of features. Some people don't need or want all of them. For example, why do single men need a plan tha covers birth control pills, gynecological exams, or childbirth services? They don't, and if there were a truly free market they could buy a plan that didn't have them.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 18, 2007 11:47 AMDiversity, ye are a pox upon many of us. dont like your bene's or pay or job? find another employer. simple. stop playing the suing lotto game. it's MY tax money you're playing with, crybaby.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 18, 2007 12:11 PM:-)
Posted by: Timothy on April 18, 2007 01:29 PMOf course, losing political battles don't faze you (mail voting, climate change). And you should fight for what you think is right. But before you tilt at a windmill, it's wise to understand the force that's making it spin.
Posted by: Bruce on April 18, 2007 01:58 PMThis blog isn't about my personal views on social issues. I discuss my views on government policies pertaining to social issues. Libertarianism is not inconsistent with conservative social values. It is a philosophy which recognizes that government is not a very effective tool for very many things, including influencing people's choices relating to sex, reproduction and family.
I say, screw both groups! I'm single and self employed. I need to buy every scrap of lousy healthcare insurance I can afford.
Imagine my invoice to a client in which I include, above shipping costs, HEALTH CARE COSTS.
I'd be laughed off the planet.
To start the reform, I suggest that all employee benefits, except company christmas parties, be FULLY taxed. "Partner" attendance at company christmas should be tax deductible by the other partner.
1. Third parties paying for healthcare.
2. "Cost of Living" pay raises.
3. Malpractise suits that either are unfounded or seek compensation in astronomical amounts.
As a guest, I asked the following question in regard to your views, "I don't know the answer, are there any cohesively successful libertarian or libertine societies?" I still ask that question. Many cultures in Europe are fairly libertarian and some are libertine. Each culture is different just as different regions in this country are different. Just for the sake of argument, do you think the European model is successful? I make no bones about it, I am not a secular progressive or a secularist in general. If one is attempting to build a cohesive society that works for most, is the European model successful and the key question able to produce enough stable families to sustain their culture?
Posted by: WVH on April 18, 2007 09:41 PMIf these people are so dead set on suing someone, then they need to sue the fed, because no matter the outcome of this suit, the issues you raised will not be effected.
In short, even if they get what they want, it will have no impact on their issue.
There is no law that says if you provide benefits to someone by virtue of marriage, that you must provide benefits to people who are not married... tax benefits notwithstanding.
Nor are public entities required to provide benefits to a non-employed person, gay or otherwise.
There is no standing for a discrimination claim, since there is no legal comparison between a married couple and a couple that, well, isn't.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 11:19 PMTrue, but when a government agency does provide benefits, is there no obligation to do so in a fair manner? Could the DOV provide benefits to family members of its white employees, but not to its black employees?
Stefan,
Just plain BS.
Libertarianism includes a systematic attack on conservative social values. It is the difference between libertarianism and conservatism. Conservatism is about preserving the institutions that hold a society together.
The best example of the difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the difference between our Revolutionary War and France's Revolutionary War. In France, the fall of the Bastille was followed by the Terror and Napoleon's dictatorship.
I don't know that it is true that a private employer could discriminate against red heads if there was a statistical way to provide that was what they were doing. It is an immutable characteristic and since being red haired, true, not the bottle kind is an immutable genetic characteristic, there might be a lawsuit. Here is the real question for this society. I don't know if this book is still in print, but it is called Moral Indignation and Middle Class Psychology by Svend Ranulf. The thesis is the two most liberatarian groups in a society are the very rich and the very poor. A successful society in order to maintain social cohesion needs a strong middle class because that is the group that maintains the mores for a successful society. These mores are passed on by strong families.
Now, the questions for this society are:
1. What is a family
2. Are some of these benefits really directed
at supporting and sustaining families
3. No matter what the definition of family, should
society be supporting strong families because
they are best for a culture and society to
raise children
4. Based upon a person's economic and personal
philosophy, how would they answer the above
questions
These are difficult questions and people have very different answers.
Posted by: WVH on April 19, 2007 09:27 AMThat's probably why the complaint here is being brought against a government agency -- which has the additional obligation to treat all citizens fairly -- rather than a private employer.
Posted by: Bruce on April 19, 2007 09:49 AMThe second part of your statement is factually true, but the first part ("there is no standing") does not follow from that. Government agencies are required to treat all citizens fairly and equally (that's the principle; I don't know the exact words in our state constitution or precedent). That means it can't give benefits (which includes benefits for dependents) to straight employees and deny them to gay employees. The fact that the straight ones are married is (arguably) irrelevant since it is impossible for gays to get married.
Posted by: Bruce on April 19, 2007 10:01 AM1. "WVH- What on earth does "secular" have to do with this issue? Do you just use the term as an epithet for anyone you disagree with? "
In terms of this issue, it has everything to do with this issue. How is family defined for one thing. No, secular progressive is not an epithet for anyone I disagree with. By your own definition, you are an athetist and progressive. A secular progressive is one who wants all vestiges of religion excised from the public square. By my recollection, I had to tell you at least three times that a limited voucher program for parents of low-income children color in failing schools did not mean that religion was being forced on upper middle class children like yours.
2. This is a summary of the law on race discrimination.
"Terms or conditions of employment" means just about anything relating to someone's job: their position, pay, title, hours, vacations, most everything is a term or condition of employment. Whether or not a person is hired is also considered a term or condition of employment.
Race is generally defined as a person's ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Everyone is some race or color. This means that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone, if the basis is their race or color.
Employment race discrimination in the workplace based on association with people of a particular race is also prohibited. For instance, if an employer fired a white employee because she had black friends, or was dating a black man, the white woman would have a discrimination suit, whether or not the employer is prejudiced against whites.
It is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of "color". In one case, an employer hired a "light-complexioned" black applicant with "Caucasian features" over another black applicant who had a "dark complexion" and "Negroid features". This was also against the law, even though in a strict sense one race wasn't being preferred over another.
There are two types of race discrimination in the workplace: "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" .
Disparate Treatment, Race Discrimination In The Workplace
"Disparate treatment" is straightforward discrimination. Simply put, it is treating a person differently because of a protected class, like sex or race.
Disparate Impact, Discrimination In The Workplace
Disparate Impact Discrimination is more complicated. "Disparate Impact" is where some type of company policy excluded a certain individual or individuals from the job or from promotions. The policy wasn't designed to exclude them; that was just the unfortunate result.
http://discriminationattorney.com/race.shtml
A argument can be made that an immutable genetic characteristic like red hair is covered.
Posted by: WVH on April 19, 2007 10:04 AMIn discussions such as this one, it is common for some participants to be interested in intepreting the law, and others to be interested in identifying desirable outcomes. I find the latter type of discussion more interesting (especially given that most of us aren't lawyers).
Should the City of Bellevue -- a public employer -- be able to offer a benefit to its straight employees that isn't available to its gay employees (since the latter group can't marry their partners)?
I raised the readhead issue as a way of distiguishing between the obligations of public and private employers. Ironically I think you are trying to prove that private employers are held to the higher standard, though none of the stuff you cite has anything to do with that, and even if it did, it would be unrelated to the Bellevue case -- as would taxpayer payments to religious schools (my concern was not that you would force my kids into religious schools, but that you would force me to subsidize them with my taxes).
Posted by: Bruce on April 19, 2007 10:43 AMFor those who haven't followed the specifics of the case against Bellevue, the suit stems from a 2005 incident in which a gay firefighter was denied a day of paid bereavement leave to attend the funeral of the father of his long-time partner.
For those who support Bellevue's position, would your view change if the City of Bellevue or the State of Washington offered either civil unions or same-sex marriage?
1. Employment law is not my speciality, but I seem
to remember lawsuits on race discrimination
brought against Boeing and Ford. Are you
sure discrimination laws don't apply to
private employers of a certain size?
2. Like most secular progresives you argue
by attack, demeaning, and overgeneralization.
"Unless, of course, you want to amend the
constitution to not require employees to be
treated equitably."
This argument is absurd. One the issues is
defintion of a family. There is a legimate
disagreement. The contra argument to gay
marriage is gays are free to marry another
person of the opposite sex.
Now, the tax subsidy argument is interesting.
There was a demonstration yesterday against
the war. Should pacifists be forced to
subsidize the war? Should people against
abortion be forced to subsidize that? How
about people against nuclear energy?
The secular progressive agenda is pretty clear, all secular progresive ideas are good, any one with a contra idea is a knuckle dragging idiot.
There are some very legitimate disagreements based on philosophy. As a personal matter, based on my observation, I'd trust the personal values of those who have a faith perspective a lot sooner than a secular progressive orientation.
To quote Cato, the recent "morality is in the eye of the beholder." That seems to be the secular progressive mantra.
Guess your google link was disabled:
Employers And Other Entities Covered By EEO Laws
IV. Which Employers and Other Entities Are Covered by These Laws?
Title VII and the ADA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.
The ADEA covers all private employers with 20 or more employees, state and local governments (including school districts), employment agencies and labor organizations
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
If you were straight in a gay-majority world that only allowed you the option of marrying a same-sex partner, you would recognize the insincerity of that argument. Marriage to someone for whom you can't feel romantic love or sexual attraction is not meaningful -- and is ultimately a threat to the institution, as well as harmful to the straight partner and to any children produced. Someday social conservatives will realize that they picked the wrong side of this debate.
A great question, another act driven by Goobermint intervention into the market place. During the early 70s (I think) with wage controls in place (in a bad attempt to cover other Goobermint screwups) business got into the practice of offering benefits as they could not offer wage increases. Add to that the tax handling of benefits and this is yet another FAILED Goobermint attempt at controlling the market place.
If more people had to shop for benefits more attention would be paid to the cost and less luxurious policies would probably become more common.
Posted by: Bob on April 19, 2007 12:50 PMThe wrong side of this debate Roger is yours. Marriage that does not have the possibility of producing offspring is not marriage - it's just some social contract which you can get down at city hall if you want and then you can call it a "whatever partnership".
Society needs babies in order to sustain itself, and aside from specious artifical insemination arguments, that only leaves an opposite sex union as an option. Society has NO STAKE in any other type of relationship. Think about that. Society doesn't care and has absolutely no interest in whether you and your gay partner are happy and in a loving, caring, supporting whatever. The only societal interest is offspring - and that's why dependent benefits for children and opposite sex partners are what is prevalent.
Now if a business CHOOSES to offer them to domestic partners, and many do, then fine. That's their choice. But SOCIETY should not be subsidizing any other type of relationship, because there is no societal gain.
Posted by: Palouse on April 19, 2007 12:56 PMThere may be good arguments against same-sex marriage, but this isn't one. Lots of straight marriages do not have the possibility of producing children.
Isn't it a conservative argument that we're all better off living in a world where people live in stable relationships rather than "hooking up"? Most conservatives are troubled by the promiscuous gay lifestyle. And if so, wouldn't you rather encourage gays to form stable relationships?
"Society doesn't care and has absolutely no interest in whether you and your gay partner are happy and in a loving, caring, supporting whatever."
Look, I don't know if you're trying to win any converts here or just ranting, but a statement like this one just makes you look mean-spirited. We're talking about things like the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, or bereavement leave.
Posted by: Roger Dodger on April 19, 2007 01:49 PMPerhaps due to fertility issues, but that's it, and it's by far the exception. Even if a woman in a marriage is beyond her child bearing age, the man in that marriage still can produce children, and that marriage, and it's vows assure that he does not borne children by other women. Of course there are exceptions where people break their vows or just have kids out of wedlock anyway, but the exception does not disprove the ideal of a marriage as the basis for having children, and shouldn't be rewarded. This is the basis for marriage as the medium for having children, the means by which a society continues. It's not mean spirited, just the truth.
Posted by: Palouse on April 19, 2007 03:22 PMThen I guess Rudy Giuliani isn't really married, because his wife is too old to have kids. But John McCain and Newt Gingrich would qualify under your code because they remarried much younger women after their divorces. How wholesome of them.
Anyway, if you care just about kids, shouldn't you care about actual kids rather than possible ones? So where would Rush Limbaugh -- married to and divorced from 3 young women, never having kids -- fit in your moral order?
Posted by: Bruce on April 19, 2007 04:19 PMBut as Roger suggested, perhaps we should discuss what's right rather than what's legal. I see no reason to give people different benefits because their sexual orientation makes them love someone of one gender or the other. Nor do I believe there is an incentive issue: to the very limited extent that gay partner benefits change anyone's behavior, they could encourage gays to have stronger relationships, and won't affect straight relationships at all.
Posted by: Bruce on April 19, 2007 04:42 PMAs I said above, there are good arguments against same-sex marriage, but for some reason opponents rarely make those. Instead they offer up points that are easily defended against. It leaves advocates wondering whether your opposition is really based on the arguments you put forward in forums like this, or whether your views are based on religion or bigotry -- neither of which is persuasive with non-believers or non-bigots.
What is the difference between two guys living together as roommates versus two guys living together for love? Presently there is a lawsuit going through the courts claiming discrimination by two roommates that are not gay as it seems they feel that they were not treated fairly by Seattle because they did not receive the same benefits as a gay couple.
The word "fair" describes a phenomenon not expressed in many other languages. Exactly what does fair mean? It appears that "fair" results are not possible.
The current federal income tax system is fraught with special benefits designed to manipulate society by politicians seeking favor from various special interest groups. With that in mind, how could a citizen expect the tax system to be "fair".
Suggest we change the income tax system to a pay as you spend tax system.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 20, 2007 06:23 AMRoger, I am addressing the larger societal issue of marriage, not individual exceptions or anecdotal evidence about marriages that do fail. Society has determined that the optimal way for children to be raised is from two parents, a mother and father, and that marriage is the best medium to raise those children. Without children, society ceases to exist, so that is why SOCIETY doesn't and shouldn't sanction any other type of union - there is no societal gain in doing so. It's not racist, bigotry or any other insulting attack you choose, just the truth.
Posted by: Palouse on April 20, 2007 07:36 AMSnuffy@49, it's easy to have people register as domestic partners. As for fairness, the WA constutition says:
SECTION 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED.
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
Palouse@50, are you seriously claiming that a benefit of marriage is that it keeps people from having kids outside of marriage? If so, why not let gays marry so they won't have kids outside of marriage?
Marriage started as an economic and legal contract that has also become a symbol of a couple's committment to each other. All of these are fine reasons for society to let people marry. Kids were historically not the reason for marriage. I agree that 2 loving parents is the best arrangement for a kid, but that has nothing to do with allowing marriage by people who don't intend to have kids.
Posted by: Bruce on April 20, 2007 09:26 AMUh, I don't know alot of gays that can make babies with another person of the same sex. Pretty bad example. Unless you are referring to out of wedlock artificial insemination, not very common I don't think.
Bruce, you are missing the point, the salient point, of what marriage is for. It's not just some legal contract as you secular progressives like to think. Anyone can go and get a legal contract down at the courthouse that can get you visitation rights and such. But it's not marriage. Marriage is about children, even for those couples who choose not to have them. See #44 again, or the followup post to that if you need further explanation.
Posted by: Palouse on April 20, 2007 10:04 AMat post #29
" Some states may have stricter laws but I don't think most states require fairness by private employers in general. I'm not saying this is good policy, just the law."
and
31. WVH@28 - No federal law prohibits private employers from discriminating on the basis of "immutable genetic characteristics". Only certain specific groups are prohibited. Indeed, that's why it's important to pass laws prohibiting discrimination against specific groups when it's clear that those groups are being discriminated against. Some states may have stricter laws but I don't think most states require fairness by private employers in general. I'm not saying this is good policy, just the law.
That's probably why the complaint here is being brought against a government agency -- which has the additional obligation to treat all citizens fairly -- rather than a private employer."
Again, not being an employment discrimination lawyer, I believe that color is covered.
"It is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of "color". In one case, an employer hired a "light-complexioned" black applicant with "Caucasian features" over another black applicant who had a "dark complexion" and "Negroid features". This was also against the law, even though in a strict sense one race wasn't being preferred over another."
This cite from the law web site.
Am I quoting you incorrectly
Posted by: WVH on April 20, 2007 01:21 PM"WVH@48, I never said EEO law doesn't apply to private companies. Stop claiming I said it. And what does marriage between a human and an animal have to do with anything?"
The point is society is able to define marriage. I believe that it was reported a couple of months back that a woman in Thailand married a snake. I don't know whether it was a valid ceremony legally, but the point is how does society choose to define marriage. That is the point.
Posted by: WVH on April 20, 2007 01:25 PMCouldn't agree more WVH, and I think we've been saying that here for a while.
As to Bruce's contention that marriage is not about children, if that were the case then we would allow people to marry their siblings as well.
The bigger picture is a society providing a successful mechanism to continue and successfully raise offspring. This is why traditional marriage is given a special status above all other unions. Society has no stake in any other union.
Posted by: Palouse on April 20, 2007 01:48 PMPUBLIC AND PRIVATE employers are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES defined by law, including race.
PUBLIC employers have the additional requirement to treat all citizens FAIRLY, equitably, or some similar principle. The definition varies somewhat by jurisdiction and the courts who interpret it.
Posted by: Bruce on April 20, 2007 10:23 PMI don't know what your defintion of fairness is.
I have no problem with domestic partnership. Where secular progressives like you and I and Palouse disgree is that there is an optimum family that society should promote and that is a two parent heterosexual family. There will be other successful families that don't fit that model, but that is the optimum for raising children. That is not your ideology, I understand that. Your definition of fair is the way you want the world to be. That is why we are engaged in culture wars. Secular progressives' definition of fair is a secular progressive world.
"WVH- Is it really so confusing?"
I will let Palouse and others give their perspective.
My opinions are based upon my research and my observations of the Black family and Black culture. Secular progressive ideology has destroyed the Black family and by the support of hip hop culture is threatening the larger culture as well. I also cite the research of Monyihan, Sowell, Williams, and Mc Whorter to back up my opinions. Black conservatives, like myself and progressives, because he is not secular, like Dr. Bill Cosby are working hard to restore the Black family and values which will support the Black family like valuing education and children being raised by committed partners in stable
relationships. Both groups support economic development in the Black community and by Blacks.
If I had to do a visual for secular progressive ideology, it would be a doughnut. There is nothing in the core. Cato, the recent said it best, "morality is in the eye of the beholder." That, in my opinion, sums up secular progressive ideology. To quote Alice B. Toklas, "there is no there, there." Welfare programs and other legislation with a secular progressive slant has destroyed my community. Knowing the way that you respond, Bruce, I did not say that the needy shouldn't be helped and children should be starved. What I am saying is these programs destroyed the Black family and community by the manner they were designed and implemented.
Your version of fair, no thanks.
Posted by: WVH on April 21, 2007 10:08 AMI suspect you have some good ideas on how to encourage the above, and I would genuinely like to hear them. Instead you keep proposing taxpayer subsidy of religious education and denial of rights basied on sexual orientation. It's not clear how any of these ideas would accomplish the goals you claim to want. I am left to conclude that you are really trying to push your agenda of taxpayer-funded religion and bigotry toward gays.
We disagree on a few points. I think two parents are better than one, all other things being equal. But single-parent families are (a) a reality and (b) better than unstable couples. And I don't think the sexual orientation of the parents makes a big difference in their parenting ability. But while we disagree on these points, those disagreements are mostly theoretical. We aren't disagreeing on any policies that would encourage or discourage such families. Perhaps we would differ on whether single or gay parents should be allowed to adopt children, but that debate hasn't come up here. So I don't understand why you raise these issues. Let's stick to policy decisions that help accomplish the goals we both seek.
Posted by: Bruce on April 21, 2007 02:39 PMAs always, you argue like a secular progressive, by exaggerating and extending the argument beyond what is actually said. How many posts did it take to get you to the point private employers are included in EEO law if they are of a certain size.
Let's take your exaggerations point by point. You
said:
" suspect you have some good ideas on how to encourage the above, and I would genuinely like to hear them. Instead you keep proposing taxpayer subsidy of religious education and denial of rights basied on sexual orientation. It's not clear how any of these ideas would accomplish the goals you claim to want. I am left to conclude that you are really trying to push your agenda of taxpayer-funded religion and bigotry toward gays."
1. Regrading tax payer subsidy of religious education, both the Florida plan and Milwaukee plan gave parents vouchers for children who had been in failing schools and where they learning nothing. The parents choose the school. This is not a general subsidy and you know it. You continually make this bogus argument. Guess what in a society, sometimes people subsidize things they don't agree with like the military, abortion, and nuclear power. So, if you want to continue to attempt to portray me as as religious idiot, have at it. Upper middle class secular progressives like yourself don't want poor little children of color educated. That statement is just as valid as your statement about an across the board religious subsidy.
2. Let's take the point about denial of rights based upon sexual orientation. I favor domestic partnerships. That answers many of the legal issues. I do not favor gay marriage. I generally
limit my observations to my community. Many Blacks resent the comparison to civil rights, including the Congressional Black Caucus:
There have been several incidents of homosexual-rights activists and city mayors invoking the names of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King and equating the 1960s movement to the current struggle by homosexuals to win "marriage" rights.
But black politicians on Capitol Hill said they do not think that is right.
"The civil rights movement was more of a movement for the equal rights of all Americans: education, voting rights, jobs. Whereas gay rights in terms of gay marriage is a movement for a special group of Americans," said Rep. Artur Davis, Alabama Democrat. "So I would not compare civil rights with gay rights."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040315-122503-3346r.htm
I will let Palouse and others discuss with you generally. I know that I want the best for my community and I want the best for all low-income children, no matter their color. For Black kids, they need two heterosexual parents. That is what I, and Bill Cosby are working for in our community. We have seen the damage your ideology does.Your toxic ideology holds no sway with me.
Oh, by the way, the prime example of a secular progressive weasel is Hillary Clinton. She slams Imus, attempts a photo op with the Rutgers team and she picked up $$$ from a hip hop mogul:
From Clinton, Hip-Hop Hypocrisy
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, April 21, 2007; Page A17
Put me in the camp of those who implore Sen. Hillary Clinton to give it back -- "it" being the reported $800,000 that's sitting in her presidential campaign coffers thanks to a fundraiser hosted in her honor March 31 in the Pinecrest, Fla., home of a huge Clinton fan who refers to himself as Timbaland.
In response to my questions, Clinton campaign spokesman Blake Zeff said in an e-mail this week that it cost $1,000 just to get into Timbaland's fundraiser, that about 200 guests were on hand and that the senator was accompanied by former president Bill Clinton.
You would not be reading about Clinton or about Timbaland -- who entered this vale of tears 36 years ago in Norfolk under the name Timothy Mosley -- were it not for the fact that he is a well-heeled hip-hop producer and noted performer of the kind of misogynistic and denigrating lyrics that informed Don Imus's derogatory comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.
Mrs. Clinton, you may recall, took umbrage at Imus's remarks, branding them "small-minded bigotry and coarse sexism." His words, she said in an e-mail to supporters, "showed a disregard for basic decency and were disrespectful and degrading to African Americans and women everywhere."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042001589.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Just another secualer progressive weasel who lies when it suits their purpose, exhibits phony outrage, and demeans people of faith. Is Hillary your candidate?
Posted by: WVH on April 21, 2007 03:59 PMOne (my first). But it took many posts to get you to read and understand it.
sometimes people subsidize things they don't agree with
Good point. But our constitution -- at least as generally interpreted -- says that religion should be treated more privately, without government involvement because of the danger of government interference in religion -- both to those who agree with that religion and those who don't. I know some people (including you) disagree with whether this is the proper interpretation of the constitution, and that is a fine debate for us to have. But you have to agree that the constitution addresses this issue more than other activities that the government might subsidize.
if you want to continue to attempt to portray me as as religious idiot, have at it.
Far from it. I have never portrayed you as an idiot, and I don't think you're an idiot. I disagree with your positions on public policy with respect to religion.
"The civil rights movement was more of a movement for the equal rights of all Americans: education, voting rights, jobs. Whereas gay rights in terms of gay marriage is a movement for a special group of Americans," said Rep. Artur Davis, Alabama Democrat. "So I would not compare civil rights with gay rights."
I don't claim gay rights issues are identical to Black rights issues. But that quote is nonsensical. Both Black rights and gay rights were/are movements to give one group (which one calls a "special group" if one wants to diminish it) -- a group that had historically been given fewer rights than the majority -- equal rights to the rest of the population. You can disagree whether they deserve those rights or what should be done about it, but the quote just makes no sense.
Posted by: Bruce on April 21, 2007 10:16 PM1. We disagree on just about everything. Is Hillary your candidate?
2. Many people who support gay marriage are wary of Blacks. That was the point of the quote. Calling me a bigot because I don't support gay marriage. Well, there are a lot of folks in my community that don't support gay marriage. Care to call us all bigots?
3. The last response is equating a race with a condition, homosexuality. I don't know if being gay is something that can't be changed or if one is born with that disposition. Race is something that is immutable. They are not comparable, which is the point of the quote.
We probably shouldn't take up too much more space on this thread. You are a secular progressive, I am not and there is little common ground. Doubtful there is much of anything we agree on.
Oh, Jay Sheklow and my research disagree with your intrepretation of the Constitution and religion. Anyhow, we won one with partial birth abortion. I suppose your candidate, Hillary will work to repeal that.
Gee, you secular progressives really like us Black folks. I have been sic'd, called a bigot, and now I am juvenile. You decided I wasn't an idiot or is that in the mix, now?
Is Hillary your candidate and do you agree with
her attending the hip hop event? Should she give the money back? This is the question I really want answered. Should she give back the money?
I just love you secular progressives, you have such contempt for everyone.
Posted by: WVH on April 22, 2007 12:22 PMIs Hillary "my candidate"? I don't know yet. I like her, Obama, and Richardson but am not sure who I prefer.
I don't know anything about the hip hop event other than what you've said. I don't think candidates are fully responsible for what their political friends do, but they sometimes should be held responsible. I would have to look into the details to form an opinion here. But I don't consider it nearly as important as the issues. I do share your dislike for the cultural phenomena that you call "hip hop culture", though I don't know enough to say whether you are using that term correctly; wikipedia defines it much differently from you, and I know that you use Fox news definitions for terms like "traditionalist" and "secular progressive" that stand their common English language definitions on their head. I strongly oppose any culture that promotes violence, misogyny, and ignorance.
Posted by: Bruce on April 23, 2007 12:00 AM1. You attempt to refrain from personal attacks,
sorry I missed it. Oh, so like some
conservatives, you are color blind.
Interesting.
2. The hip hop description is from the
Washington Post, hardly conservative. If
Hillary is so against Imus and wants him
fired, shouldn't she at least be consistent
in her outrage. I guess it is just another
case of what Cato the recent described
"morality is in the eye of the beholder."
Hillary is just another lying secular
progressive weasel who says don't do what
I do, do what I say.
As a matter of law societies determine the meaning of "fair" in the affairs of citizens. On that we may agree to some extent.
The determination breaks down on a practical level when special groups desire a special status within the society. The special group currently being discussed desires special status based on sexual orientation that may be practiced or perceived. I have a problem understanding
"perception". I also have a problem with duration. A person is born and dies with his skin color, barring medical intervention.
"Gay" people may and do change their sexual orientation and perceptions many times during their life.
Given the above complexities, it appears rather difficult to grant special status to people that may be temporarily "special". Especially when that "special status" will compromised all other society activities. For example laws will impact religions that find fault or sin in "special" activities. As it will be unlawful to speak out against the "special" activities in the pulpit.
The "special" group will gain entrance and membership to all organizations where they are currently denied and organizations currently denying access to the "special" group will by law be ostracized. Organizations such as the Boys Scouts, Bible camps, etc. will suffer consequences.
All of this change so that a deviant activity may be treaty "fairly."
In effect the "special" group will be able to change society by the power of law. For if they have acceptance there will not be a special law.
The demands being made of society by militant "gays" is far more then the "marriage" issue. The unintended consequences will forever disrupt values of society as we know it today by impacting many "rights" we treasure.
If the gays want a boy's club or girl's club let them start their own rather than tear down the existing boy's and girl's club. If the special group wants a church to condone their "special" sexual orientation(s), then start their own, rather than deny free speech of existing churches.
Many of the "special" rights requested by the "special" group(s) are already available.
Sharing medical insurance by "special" folk is rather dubious given the ease that one or more may so declare their special status. As I previously posted, how may the differences be determine between two roommates of the same sex or a "special" couple. Public registration is not required. And the "special" situation may be temporary.
All pigs are equal; some pigs are more equal.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 23, 2007 09:26 AM