Civil Rights/Equality Act

LBGT are not covered under existing provisions for sexual discrimination?

1. They are generally very religious if they oppose LGBT being protected. They see it as an unhealthy and unnatural thing, especially T.
   
2. They don't generally support legislation that forces business to hire or not fire a certain type of person or to meet strict quotas. They see the freedom for a business to hire and fire aa the boss(es) please as superior in importance to the right of minorities to be protected and businesses to readily give them job opportunities.
   
3. There is a failed attack you bring up about cancel culture and how they'd oppose someone being fired for being Christian. They'd accept that, then they'd indeed use cancel culture to boycott said business. In other words, they do actually embrace cancel culture and your attack is based on the idea they are inherently against it. They aren't, instead they believe in financial repercussions rather than legal ones, where the citizens enforce their ethics rather than the government.

Today the Equality Act was reintroduced to Congress. The Equality Act would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, federally funded programs and jury service. As it stands, LGBT people can be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, or denied service from businesses in the majority of states simply for being who they are (or who their parents are). 

The Equality Act is expected to pass easily in the House, but struggle in the Senate.  Ten Republicans would be needed to reach the 60 votes to end a filibuster on the legislation, and right now it doesn't look like they have the votes.  

I don't understand why Republicans have a problem with this bill.

Isn't firing someone for being gay CANCEL CULTURE?

I assumed they would be eager to mitigate Cancel Culture and make sure people aren't discriminated against simply because you don't like them or the way they live, but surprise! 

It turns out conservatives feel very strongly about their right to discriminate and ban or cancel people at their discretion 🤪

The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sex, race,  religion, etc. and I don't think anyone but libertarians (i.e. very few people) would say they believe you should be allowed to legally discriminate against someone's race --  so why is sexuality different?

Sexual orientation is not a choice;

So unless you believe ALL discrimination should be legal, I don't understand the right-wing argument for excluding sexuality as a protected class. 

At best there is the ridiculously bad argument about "not wanting kids to learn what sexuality is."  Why would you have to talk about sex explicitly when acknowledging one's identity? "This is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband." '

 Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father.

You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships. 

Since sexuality is an immutable characteristic

which has been verified by psychologists for decades, why do Republicans cling to the idea that you can discriminate against gay people with impunity?

If they think you should be able to fire someone for being gay, why is it wrong to fire them for being black or being Christian? Religion actually ISN'T inherent to one's identity (unless you're Jewish lol) so why is it wrong to fire someone for being Catholic?

Why don't Republicans push to get rid of the Civil Rights Act entirely? 

  If LGBT person Dave wants to charge $50,000 a year and some random guy named Paul wants to charge $75,000 a year for their labor, If a business wants to discriminate on the basis of Dave's sexuality they are incurring a $25,000 a year cost to be bigots. That seems fair to me, since Dave is still free to take his talents elsewhere.

Cancel Culture generally refers to boycotts, shaming, de-platforming and firing for perceived offenses. Even assuming public backlash must be a prerequisite to qualify, we know conservatives use the media to evoke cancellations over sexuality all the time. Example: Mass Effect 2 was supposed to have a character that was pansexual, but the creators decided to scrap that after a segment on Fox News lamenting sexuality in video games -- or all the times Disney was shamed into scrapping  families headed by gay couples in their programming due to conservative media whining about it.

(I do know it isn't )

Whether or not sexuality is a choice (I do know it isn't )does matter. The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on things one cannot change about themselves.

I joked that being Jewish could arguably be an immutable characteristic because Jewish people follow matrilineality. 

The terms husband and wife have nothing to do with sex.

They only imply sex to those exposed or old enough to understand what sex is.

In that case parents have already failed at protecting their kids from learning about sexuality,

and therefore can't say acknowledging I have a wife is somehow what will expose their children to the concept of sex.

Your gripes with psychology don't really interest me and are mostly untrue, especially as it pertains to neuroscience.

I don't understand the questions you are asking me about it though. It seems you are making assumptions about me agreeing with non-discrimination orders by government. Obviously discrimination is justified in many instances, especially age discrimination, but regardless I don't understand your point nor your point in responding to me at all unless it is to argue that sexuality is not immutable.

My point was that I don't understand the right-wing argument for not accepting sexuality as a protected class. The best one I could think of is that sexuality is not an immutable characteristic.

There is a general consensus within these communities that sexuality is not a choice, and it would behoove a decision-making person or persons to consider this. But if someone wanted to misnomer this as nothing but an appeal to authority, I'm sure the testimony of many people's empirical anecdotes could be included in the hearing as well.

I would start by asking the homophobes to change their sexuality to prove it can be done and go from there. 

No doubt that conservative media also partakes in "cancel-culture," but that's not the same as firing someone for being gay. Then again, these neologisms always find ways to take on new forms.

No, you do not.

Actions, even sexual ones, are results of choices; and attraction is in someone's head.

Was the passage of the Civil Rights Act informed by the notion that characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc. couldn't be changed?

That wouldn't make sense given that they included religion which can be changed,

How does that make it immutable in comparison to the patrilineal structure of Christianity and Islam?

 Research both terms, and I assure you they'll lead to sex.

Yes, and many children are exposed to the PDA of their parents, even if they don't have an experienced adult's understanding of what it is they're seeing.

They're not trying to protect them from heterosexuality; they're trying to protect them from homosexuality, which depending on their inclinations, they see as a perversion.

They're not trying to protect them from heterosexuality; they're trying to protect them from homosexuality, which depending on their inclinations, they see as a perversion.

Fair enough. But it isn't  the concept of sex per se, but the "perversion of homosexuality."

Psychology =/= neuroscience.

Should so-called "Blacks" be deprived privileges by the State commensurate to their deviation from the mean?

Do so-called "Whites" get afforded more privileges?

What about men and women, and their alleged psychological differences? What about adults and children?

My point is, what use is there in citing "psychology" if it can be used just as easily as a metric to justify discrimination?

So once again, I ask: does it matter whether or not it's a choice? If it was choice, would that be justification to afford them fewer privileges by the State?

And again, if the Republican base consist predominantly of Evangelical Christians, then why is psychology as opposed to Biblical doctrine not being explored as a rubric which informs the positions of conservatives?

It isn't an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to consensus. 

 So having sex with someone of one's own sex despite not being attracted to them can demonstrate "sexuality as a choice."

You must be very proud of yourself for that astute observation using one definition of the term, and you are indeed correct. But I said change your sexuality. You described having sex i.e. sexuality in action, which does not reference anything that you have changed or can change. The definition of sexuality includes a person's identity in relation to the sex or sexes to which they are typically attracted; one's  sexual orientation. Choosing to have sex with someone you are not attracted to doesn't change whom you are attracted to. 

But you're here pointing out sExUaLiTy Is A cHoIcE bEcAuSe YoU cAn ChOoSe WhOm YoU hAvE sEx WiTh which is like... I don't even care enough to have this pointless conversation. Spare me. If you want me to pat you on the head for how smart you are in making these "accckchually" points, just pretend I have done that and hopefully that fulfills you for the day. 

There's pretty rampant discrimination against ugly people, short people, left handed (not so much in this culture) people, etc. that is all just the same to me as racial discrimination but is legal for the most part.

LBGT are not covered under existing provisions for sexual discrimination?

They don't generally support legislation that forces business to hire or not fire a certain type of person or to meet strict quotas.

It's my understanding that "conservatives" generally supported the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Why don't Republicans push to get rid of the Civil Rights Act entirely? 

Fair enough.

Ted Cruz also wanted to launch a  criminal investigation into Netflix for showing the movie "Cuties" because he didn't like the content. The Prime Minister of Israel tweeted about how along with US conservatives, they have supported U.S. laws that determine action should be taken against those that try to boycott Israel. So the Israeli government and its American lemmings push to criminalize dissent of Israel - even convincing some states to require loyalty oaths to Israel in order to get government contracts. These hypocrites obviously have no problem using government to cancel people and things they disagree with. 

The terms husband and wife have nothing to do with sex.

won't be any functional reason to have one policy for men or one for women