Equal rights for gays

Royal Gazette Opinion, Thursday 6 October 2005

Almost one year ago, Bermuda’s gay community were celebrating. Last November, Minister of Community Affairs Dale Butler announced that the Government would be extending the Human Rights Act to make it illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. The pledge should have been included in the Throne Speech, he said, but “there was a line that was left out”.

“The changes will take us out of the dark ages and create an awareness about living openly rather than hiding these things in the closet,” said Mr. Butler at the time.

Alas, two days later, it became clear that perhaps that line had not been left out accidentally after all. Clarifying his statement, Mr. Butler said that the initiative was simply something he would have liked to include. Premier Alex Scott went further, saying that protecting gay rights “was not a priority”.

Could things be about to change again?

“It was left out [of last year’s Throne Speech] because the human rights officer must present information based on research,” said Mr. Butler in response to an emailed question. “This information then becomes a Cabinet paper and the Government then has to decide.”

Last week he told me, again via email, that this information is now being reviewed and that a formal statement will come when the Cabinet has considered it. “If it is accepted or rejected it will be made known November 4th in the Throne Speech,” he said.

Last November, government backbencher Renee Webb promised to bring a private member’s bill to protect gays if the Cabinet did not back such legislation. I emailed her to ask if this was something she was still prepared to do, but did not receive a response. However, Mr. Butler was confident, saying that if the Cabinet decided not to act, “I know that Renee Webb will pick it up.”

The PLP aren’t the only ones reluctant to commit themselves, however. When I asked UBP leader Grant Gibbons to confirm that a UBP government would extend anti-discrimination legislation to homosexuals, he was evasive. “When Renee raised this issue several months ago, our caucus debated it without reaching a consensus. We have not revisited the issue since then. However, at some point, we will probably revisit it again.”

“We will probably revisit it again”? This is not a new issue. Why doesn’t the UBP have a position on it?

I understand that electoral concerns are at work here. Neither party wants to offend the fundamentalist churches, who continue to argue for the right to discriminate against homosexuals based on the contents of a 2,000-year-old book.

However, there are homosexuals of all religious persuasions. By arguing for the right to discriminate, the churches are arguing for the right to impose their religion on others who may not share their faith. This is odd when you consider that the Act guarantees freedom of religion, which to my mind implies freedom from religion too.

If I subscribe to a religious sect that holds that God created people with black skin to signal their sinfulness, should I be permitted to discriminate against blacks? Clearly not. So why should permitting discrimination against homosexuals because of what it says in the Bible be any different?

Some might say, “Because you’re born black but you choose to be homosexual”. This is nonsense. Do heterosexuals make a conscious decision to be straight? If homosexuality is a choice, does it not follow that heterosexuality must be a choice too? Moreover, why would anyone choose to be gay when it leads to such widespread ostracism?

The other argument in favour of allowing gays to be discriminated against, as advanced by Reverend Goodwin Smith (ironically a former chairman of the Human Rights Commission) and others, is that to give them protection under the Human Rights Act would be to afford them “a special class of rights” that other citizens do not have. Apart from, of course, blacks, whites, men, women, foreigners, the disabled, Christians, Muslims, Jews, PLP supporters, UBP supporters and even NLP supporters, all of whom are currently protected against discrimination as a result of those identities by the Act.

I am not suggesting that the churches must agree with homosexuality. If they still wish to consider it sinful, it is their right to do so. They should simply not be permitted to discriminate on those grounds.

There may be a more practical reason for Bermuda to become more tolerant of homosexuals too. Following a recent Bermuda Sun article about Bermudians who choose to move overseas, several people have suggested that Bermuda’s attitude towards homosexuals is driving many talented and well-educated gay Bermudians away. If Bermuda were a more understanding place, perhaps we wouldn’t need to hire quite so many foreign workers?

While politicians have a responsibility to represent those who voted for them, they also have a responsibility to show leadership. They should not always pander to the base instincts of their constituents. Gay rights are one area where such leadership has been conspicuously absent.

“You cannot legislate morality,” argued Reverend Smith. Indeed. However we can – and should – legislate freedom from the morality of others.

Comments

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 10:03]

Like I said the church holds to much power over political lobbies. None of our politcians have the political will to even think of looking bad infront of the eyes of the church.
Goddamn stupid xians. You think young gay people wanna stay in Bermuda when you go out to a dance and here 80 out of a 100 songs singing about the desire to kill you for being gay. Or stand by while somebody gets their head cracked in because of a rumor of them being gay. Depending what type of person you are or what vibe your into your life in Bermuda can be very hard if you're gay. Kinda like being a jew in germany.

Premier Alex Scott went further, saying that protecting gay rights “was not a priority”.

I hope if he has kids one will be gay so he can see what its like to be born aginst the law.

[Yet Another Limey on 06.10.05 at 10:08]

I always try to understand the point of view of religious people by comparing it to my view of drug addicts.

If I found a friend of mine taking heroin I’d do everything I could to try and convince them to stop, because in my eyes hard drugs are about the worst thing a person can do short of plain suicide.

In a similar way, Christians see someone who hasn’t taken Christ as their saviour has their immortal soul in danger, with consequences far worse than drug abuse – eternal fiery torment anyone?

So when it comes to emotive subjects like homosexuality I try to understand their point of view. For Muslims, the Koran does specifically say that homosexuality is bad. And for Jews there are some passages in Leviticus that point towards it being wrong. But for Christians I’ve seen no part of the teachings of Jesus that even mention it. Some Christians will say that they take the teachings of the Old Testament as well as the new – but the majority of these people tend to pick and choose the bits of the Old Testament they want to follow, not eating pork and shellfish, keeping Saturday sacred and my personal favourite from the 10 commandments not creating graven images (that’s everything from simple crucifixes to the works of the renascence painters).

Homophobia is just another prejudice, it’s a shame that some people try to hide that prejudice as religious teaching. It’s time some Christians actually read their bible and not just going along with whatever their preacher/church tells them.

It’s a hard change to make when people you’ve grown up being told to respect and believe without question are telling you that being gay is wrong.

I know how hard it is to change, as I’ve looked into the medical evidence and it turns out Heroin isn’t actually that bad for you – it’s the government and media’s portrayal that have left me with my prejudice. (it’s the stuff mixed with it and the practice of sharing needles that’ll kill you).

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 06.10.05 at 10:30]

All peoples rights are a priority and that includes Gays.Sexual orientation is an individual issue that is never smooth sailing regardless of being straight or gay.All people in our Bermuda deserve respect and equality under the law.The church can have its views but in many cases some of the greatest harm to innocents have come directly from the Church.The path to God is for all and while people may have their views it should not come at the expense of other peoples choices or basic human rights.

[Full Fullish on 06.10.05 at 10:34]

Premier Alex Scott said, saying that protecting gay rights “was not a priority”.

Interesting, I thought that government protecting anyone's rights was a priority....

Me, I've never been able to understand the world of a gay person, much the same that I've never been able to walk in a black man's shoes, this being said, however, EVERYONE should have the same rights afforded to them, regardless of sex, race, creed or sexual preference.

The churches are hypocrits when they denouce gay rights. The first thing I was taught growing up, by the church was not to judge people and accept them for who they are. I see no clause or small print stating "Unless of course if you are gay".

Ethiops, I couldn't agree more with you over seperation of church and state. The current government AND the opposition need to develop a backbone and stop being dictated to by the churches. Especially since I hear about so many gays in position of power in the government!

It kills me that both government and church condem discrimination ONLY when it applies to the colour of your skin, however it's a different story if it's your sexual preference. Last time I checked discrimination was wrong morally and in most countries legally, but not here however. Segregation comes in many forms and mentalities, I would have thought that this government would have fought against it regardless of race, colour, creed OR sexual orientation.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 10:51]

Wolf as usal on point.

Religion acts as a server to take you online to the world of the spirit. Truth be known its probably the oldest hacker of the spirit. Even today its got to be one of the faster ways offline from the spirit of things. The exoteric relationship they can offer you in religion, will have nothing to do with the esoteric relationship you have with the cosmos anyway. The levels of codependancy in some church folk is just pathetic, the need to convert others inorder to feel justified in thier own folly is nothing but sickening.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 10:58]

Full Fullish

lol So true if the members of government that were gay, by some freak in nature had pink hair tomorrow Bermuda would flip. :)

[Full Fullish on 06.10.05 at 11:02]

Ethiops -

"The exoteric relationship they can offer you in religion, will have nothing to do with the esoteric relationship you have with the cosmos anyway."

Jesus man, easy up on the brain....haven't had my morning coffee yet! ;)

Pretty damn deep, man!

[Full Fullish on 06.10.05 at 11:03]

Ethiops -

lol So true if the members of government that were gay, by some freak in nature had pink hair tomorrow Bermuda would flip. :)

Hahahaha, one person just came into mind, suddenly with pink hair, the thought of that image made me burst out laughing!

[Uncle Elvis on 06.10.05 at 11:19]

" Kinda like being a jew in germany"

Um. No. I understand the point you're trying to make, but what gays go through here is NOTHING like being a Jew in Germany (I'm assuming you're referring to Nazi Germany and not current-day)

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to call you on this.
This analogy is just as bad as the "Mugabe-style" ones, and almost as offensive to Jews.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 11:50]

Uncle

Many blacks (so african scholars say) here on the island are of falasha jewish origin even if the so called faith doesn't see it as so at its origin it was a people, and they were african. The white jews are the khazars that simply converted to the faith. This was my reason for using the analogy. Agreed upon history don't have to be supported by all you'll agree. Esp with closer examination of his story history shows us otherwise. Uncle, growing up in bermuda being exposed to the dancehall scene because it was the logical outlet for where I was at, was horrific. The feeling that at any moment things could go wrong if my possi knew I was a batty so they love to call us, was always with me eventhough I didn't let it rule my life. No joke and not looking for pity in saying so, sometimes 80 out of a 100 songs would be about killing gays. Someone would say "battyman fi dead" on the mic and you'd see 5000 hands go in the air showing moral support for the idea. Later in life you grow and understand that people on a one to one basis usually don't support the ideas. It's just the feeling living something like that and being forced to hold that in secrecy. Being born against the law. Being born a criminal. Yeah we didn't have the physical deaths over here but, the mini deaths of esteem and self worth can in some lights be seen as even worse. You get to live with the gifts of unwanted shame and ridicule from others. I've let the curtains fall on this one only to try paint why I used that analogy.

Funny thing reagge back in the day was always political but, never violent, it became violent once Jamaica went independant. Punch lines in songs went from being comic to violent giving birth to old faithfuls like "boom bye bye, batty fi dead, shot a fassie" etc etc. Paradox is it gave me an opportunity to put spiritual principle into practise by accepting these people and even enjoying the rest of what they sing. A loving ones enemy kinda thing I guess. Oh life...

[Bermudian in Limeyland on 06.10.05 at 11:54]

May I suggest the stand-up of Bill Hicks for an amusing but very on point description of the very unchristian beliefs of many christians.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.10.05 at 12:52]

Ethiops,
I understand where you are coming from, but, I'm sorry, ANYTHING that your ace-boys and reggae culture could do cannot compare to the wholesale slaughter of Jews in Nazi Germany.

As for the Fallasha, there's one family left in Ethiopia. The rest are now in Israel, fighting for, and winning, their rights to be considered Jewish.
You're not quite correct about the origin of the faith. While it did start in Egypt, it quickly moved to the Middle East and that is where it grew. White Jews (and the Fallasha) are decended from these middle eastern people.
But that's neither here nor there with regards to analogies to nazi Germany. I know people feel persecuted in Bermuda for being gay, and I COMPLETELY support the fight for their rights, hell, I'm for gay marriage, as well, but there is NOTHING in ANY Bermudian's experience that can compare to the atrocities in Nazi Germany.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.10.05 at 12:59]

And Bill Hicks should be on the recommended listening list of EVERYONE on this board.

[Rincewind on 06.10.05 at 13:03]

Using the bible as a guide line for morality is not good practise, this is also the book that believes women should be subservient to the males of her family and it also promots slavery, forbids masturbation, believes witches should be killed (at the same time saying it is wrong to kill)and those are just the things that spring to mind right now. It is a book full of stories and poems written by men.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 13:12]

I don't agree on the origins of the jews many say egypt was a city in ethiopia. Likewise it was the ethiopians that took civilization to the middle east. We won't go into tho as you say its neither here or there. I don't feel you can grasp what i'm trying to tell you its not just my as you put "ace boys". It's like civil war against gays by christian extremist. Anyway I was referring to the living in secrecy part of the jewish plight in germany not the pysical wholesale slaughter.

[Cancundreaming on 06.10.05 at 13:17]

Uncle Elvis and Ethiops

Wouldn't it be far more useful to agree that both anti-semitism and homophobia are both morally destructive and while gay society hasn't experienced a singular event as severe, as let’s say the holocaust, the point is nevertheless wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is that homophobia and hatred, while widely accepted by many in our society, is wrong and should become a recognized ‘wrong’ by our legislature.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.10.05 at 13:19]

As I said, I understand where you're coming from. I totally do. But, while I dig that there are some correlations, metaphorically (Hiding out, etc), there is FAR too much other stuff involved to use it as an analogy. I dig you, but you are off the mark here.

We'll discuss origins and other stuff at another time, I think. I think we've got much to learn from each other, you an' me! Care to join 2¢,jake and me for coffee one day? *grin*

Rincewind, take a peek at Jesus' message, boiled down.
I've talked with everyone from rabbis to priests about this and they agree. When you boil it down to bare bones, it goes like this...

"Be Nice.

and for goodness' sake, have faith in SOMETHING"

That's not a bad way to be, y'ask me.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.10.05 at 13:23]

Cancun, I don't think agreeing on that is an issue. I took that as a given that we ALL agree with that.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 13:23]

Rincewind

I couldn't agree more.
Plus the church has a bad track record of treating the ails of society, why should we care about what they have to say on this issue. They moan and moan you think any would put together a detox or a half way houses to house some of those in need of treatment. The buybull by many is often seen as the oldest documented farce. It's so damn egoist to speak for the whole based on your personal faith or even from a point of faith.

[Rincewind on 06.10.05 at 13:32]

If you check your history you will find that homosexuals, Gypsies, the mentally handicapped and various other groups were all targeted by the Nazis.

Uncle Elvis,
the point is not to take the bible to literally, it is after all just a book, don't use it to argue why we should not give equal rights to another group of people.

[SmokingGun on 06.10.05 at 13:40]

Premier Alex Scott went further, saying that protecting gay rights “was not a priority”.

I think he mean't to say "voter's right", no I mean, "white's rights", no umm "portuguese rights?", na..."anyone elses rights".... yeah that's it.

Last time I checked a gay person was a human being as well. I guess the Human Rights Commission should be involved here too.

[Uncle Elvis on 06.10.05 at 14:06]

Re: Nazi's treatment of homosexuals etc. All true, but not what we were talking about.

Rincewind (First off, LOVE the name! When's the next book out?), I couldn't agree more! When it was written, the rules and laws made sense. Don' eat pork, 'cuz it'll make y'sick. Trust me, I can do 20 minutes on it without thinking.
Me, I think it's not the bible's fault, or even religion's fault. It's the assholes. It's the people that use it for power or money or both, or use it to further their own goals.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get away from politicking and actually have a country that RAN?

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 14:16]

Uncle that would be so cool.

[H Reardon on 06.10.05 at 16:35]

I am constantly amazed at how the left is able to successfully brand it's product with such appealing phrases--"Equal Rights", "Women's Right to Choose", "Progressive Taxation" ect. I've got to hand it to them, they do have some marketing geniuses on their side.

When the term "Equal Rights" is used, it isn't about being equal at all--it is about singling out a specific group and give them special rights. Limey, you astutely point this out in your article, and say "black, whites, men, women..." already have such protection. Why must a certain group be singled out to be given these rights?

Let's take an example. Assume a bar owner hires a gay (fill-in whatever you like here, white, black, muslim, woman, ect..) to be a bar tender. They guy can mix drinks with the best of them (particularly the pink ones ;) However, the construction workers that used to frequent the bar aren't coming anymore--they clearly aren't comfortable with this new bartender. Under your "Equal Rights" the bar owner wouldn't be able to fire the bar tender and save his business without some sort of suit against him. Why, I ask you, should the bar tender's rights be put in front of the bar owner's rights simply because he is gay (white, black, muslim, female)?

[Stephen on 06.10.05 at 16:55]

Uncle Elvis -
"I think it's not the bible's fault, or even religion's fault. It's the assholes. It's the people that use it for power or money or both, or use it to further their own goals."

Thanks for speaking sense. There are a lot of us who believe it totally possible to be both a practicing member of our respective faiths and proudly gay. Just ask me,a faithful member of my church, and my lover, who is at his mosque tonight for prayers during Ramadan.
As a gay man I want to be judged on how I use my sexuality (consensual, loving and caring) not on what type of sexuality I am. In the same way, judge me as a Christian not on what I spout or what you believe about my faith - but on what I do to live in peace with all people.
If only more people in Bermuda could see that -that's perhaps why I make my home in the UK rather than live on the island.

[Longtime Lurker on 06.10.05 at 17:27]

I am constantly amazed at how the right is able to successfully brand it's product with such appealing phrases--"Traditional Values", "Pro-Life", "Fair Tax" etc. I've got to hand it to them, they do have some marketing geniuses on their side.

When the term "Traditional Values" is used, it isn't about being traditional at all--it is about singling out a specific group and discriminating and abusing their rights.

Let's take an example. Assume a gay (fill-in whatever you like here, white, black, muslim, woman, ect..) tries to live his life like the rest of us who are considered "normal". The guy is a great person. However, mainstream society isn't comfortable with what this gay person is doing in the privacy of his own home. Under your "Traditional Values" the gay person wouldn't be able to live his life as he chooses and retain his human dignity. Why, I ask you, should the mainstream's rights be put in front of the gay population's rights simply because they want to discriminate?

[Cancundreaming on 06.10.05 at 17:58]

H Reardon,

I don't see why you imply it's a tactic employed solely by the left. The scary 'Death Tax!, remember that? There are many other examples where the right employs the same marketing campaign.

There are significant problems with your example, equal rights refers to equal rights, but there is recognition, in any polity, as i think there should be, that while the principle of our societies supports an egalitarian idea. In reality that's not the case. It’s not an issue of affording ‘them’ special protection as you imply, it’s the law recognizing that this specific trait, quality or characteristic is protected by the law. You're part of a group that has that specific protection as well, surely you of some race or cultural group, and of a gender, all those things are affored 'speical' protection. (as you would put it)

Similarly, it’s the reason why a bad worker can’t sue on the basis that he has been discriminated against when he gets fired, there is no protection for being a bad worker. On the other hand, there should be protection for other characteristics, particularly, race, cultural groups, sexual orientation and religious beliefs.

Why you ask? Well use your own example, when was the last time someone killed somebody for being a bar owner? Can’t remember the last time I heard, ‘Let’s go kill all those bar owners.” This sentence was telling I thought.

“simply because he is gay (white, black, muslim, female)?”

It’s not that simple, the things you mention define who we all are, in some sense are at the core of our being, no one is simply black, simply a woman, or simply muslim. It is in essence, a part of who we all our, and I think society should recognize that attacking those ‘characteristics’ is a violation at the core of the human condition.

Your example is important however, it does not illustrate what you claim, that gay rights/protection should not be afforded, it does, however, illustrate one of the problems with the potential legislation. However, before i think we all tackle it, I think we all should think for a moment.. Is whether it would matter to you if in H Reardon’s example you took out gay, and put in black, female, handicap…etc....

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 18:21]

H Reardon

You give the impression all gays are feminine types. Bermuda has so many closet gays that go about everyday life without showing their sexuality you would be surprised. Not everyone wears their sexuality on their sleeve. Gays lay block and mix mortar too. You can't just put people into slots like that so quickly. We're dynamic beings us humans.

[doghouse on 06.10.05 at 19:09]

I am pretty conservative but one thing I have never been able to understand is the general aversion to gays by conservatives. I've known a load of gays. Most of them are pretty interesting. Without the distraction of children they tend to focus their attention on other activities. That's why there are so many gays in politics. My best boss of all time was gay. He was in the closet (now out of it) but you just knew he was a little different. Always brought lovely flowers to my wife and they would talk long and hard about grape sissors. Whatdoyahthink!!

There has been a suprising tolerance of gays in the upper class (40 thieves) white community. In the 40s 50s and 60s there was Gibby Cooper and his crowd. Yes it was quite a crowd!! They were discrete but quite open about their sexuality. My inlaws used to go to their parties and knew when it was time to leave. Don't know how it was in the black community but sense it may have been a lot more difficult. The aversion to gays and granting them rights seems to have a strong black fundamentalist church thing about it. Sorry to bring in race.

The world is a much better and more interesting place by the gay people I have known. As a white conservative Christian, I am all in favour of granting gays human rights protections.

[Rincewind on 06.10.05 at 20:07]

"Rincewind (First off, LOVE the name! When's the next book out?),"

Thanks,I love those books & I can not wait for the next one myself.

[H Reardon on 06.10.05 at 20:21]

Lurker,

Clever, and touche. Although I do believe the left, in general have an advantage--more than likely due to the left leaning media in the US.

Ethiops,

Agree.

I'd still like an answer to my example--why is the bartender's rights more important than the bar owners? Shouldn't we force all those patrons to go back to the bar--surely they can't be allowed to discriminate against the bar because they don't like the traits of the bartender. We all have higher morals than them, and therefore know better, we must force our morals on them. Isn't that exactly what you are arguing against?

Posted by Cancundreaming:

"I think society should recognize that attacking those ‘characteristics’ is a violation at the core of the human condition."

I agree, but placing the rights of one group above another is not the way to accomplish that. It really isn't much different than affirmative action. Defining a group and giving that group different rights just further draws the line between groups and highlights the differences between those groups--increasing the fissure between groups.

To put it another way, I believe a gay should have the same rights as me--no more, no less.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 20:32]

H Reardon

Whose to say the present bartenders in any given bar be it social club bar or downtown spot aren't already gay? I hope what i'm arguing is it's kinda strange to be born on the wrong side of the law everytime I give the topic thought it gives my brain gas. To be gay in bermuda is a crime, this means its actually possible to be born against the law. This and this alone is my deal. People outside the so called norm deserve rights and some have come incredible lengths to have the ones they have. Should a bar owners business desire come before the rights of individuals um no.

[hotspur on 06.10.05 at 20:50]

I understand the descendants of Jesus Christ are running a small café in southwest France. I think their input here would be invaluable.

[Cancundreaming on 06.10.05 at 20:57]

H Reardon,

You're articulating a typically conservative view, which is fine. But you're ignoring the line of thinking that I’m trying to get you to understand that answers your concerns in regards to your belief of 'equal rights for all and special rights for none'. ( You like that characterization don’t you, I should work for the GOP huh?)

It's not that gays, or ‘a gay’ as you referred to them, have their rights placed over yours. We are all afforded the same rights, even the ones that are extended to the protection of homosexuality. You are afforded the same type of rights; no one can, or at least shouldn't be able to fire you because you are a man or a woman. No one can, or shouldn't be able to fire you because of your religious beliefs, or lack there of. You are now a recipient of these ‘special rights’

When you reject 'gay special rights' you reject rights already afforded to you, based on these and a number of other traits that are protected by society.

But again, i think your example is good. But let me say again, your example doesn't mean that gay rights shouldn't be extended, frankly because very few 'gay firings' result because of a legitimate business concern. Most, MOST, are a direct result from a simple line of thinking "i don't like gay people."

But your example does illustrate a good point, but before i think we all should address it, i think you really need to answer the question of whether you would be ok with the bar owner firing his bartender because a direct loss of business due to the fact that his bartender was a man, woman, or because he was jewish, black or white.

[H Reardon on 06.10.05 at 22:25]

"i think you really need to answer the question of whether you would be ok with the bar owner firing his bartender because a direct loss of business due to the fact that his bartender was a man, woman, or because he was jewish, black or white."

Posted by Cancundreaming on 06.10.05 at 20:57

Of course the employer has the right to fire the jew, black or white. It is the employer's business. He has the rights to run it how he sees fit. He is the creator of the job, and should therefore be the destroyer of the job. Because I own a bar (I don't BTW), you don't have a right to a job there solely from the fact of being a bartender.

"You are afforded the same type of rights; no one can, or at least shouldn't be able to fire you because you are a man or a woman."

What if I were a model--can I be fired for not being able to model the bikini attractively--particularly since I am a man. What if my customers only responded to women salesmen, do I have to hire a man? If so, you have put the employee's rights above that of the employer--the one who created the job in the first place.

"It's not that gays, or ‘a gay’ as you referred to them"

Did I make a politically incorrect faux pas? Never was very good at that.

[Ethiops on 06.10.05 at 22:41]

H Reardon

My point is how are you going to know if your bartender is gay if he doesn't show it? Like I said they're not all feminine.

[jbhvt on 07.10.05 at 01:16]

With an out-of-wedlock birthrate that must rival urban U.S. environs, to decide that sex outside of marriage is "ok" but sex with somone of the same sex is against the law, boggles the mind.

No wonder so many are on the "Down Low"...

[Longtime Lurker on 07.10.05 at 02:33]

Reardon,

I admit that your examples of situations where hiring a person of a certain race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, lead to a loss of income are giving me some food for thought. Certainly, if a television role called for a black female, it would make no sense for a white male actor to be able to claim discrimination when they didn't get the part! I'm not sure what my view of these situations are and I'll have to think it through.

On the whole, though, I think that the examples are a distraction from the main issue. I would guess that for a good 95% of the jobs out there, these factors don't affect job performance at all. Race, gender or sexual orientation doesn't affect one's abilities as a programmer, underwriter, librarian, janitor, banker, etc, etc, etc. If someone is fired not because of personal ability, but because of sexual orientation, then this is wrong. Similarly, if a person is evicted not because they are a bad tennant, but because of their race, then this is wrong.

I know that your reply will be that you'd prefer to see the market rather than government legislation correct these problems, but for the moment let's assume that we've agreed to disagree here (we've already argued legislation vs. market, and we probably will again, but that's not what I'm trying to say here). My point is that if we had decided to use the legislative approach (which Bermuda has already for factors such as gender and race), the fact that we have found a tiny percentage of cases where discrimination might be reasonable (such as my acting role example) shouldn't prevent us from dealing with the vast majority of cases where it is not.

I'd hate to see great injustices go unresolved simply because there are certain rare cases where discrimination might be justified. The fact that we might have to add some sort of special exceptions clause will not prevent those of us who want to take the legislative approach from desiring laws preventing discrimination that occurs purely due to bigotry.

[Full Fullish on 07.10.05 at 06:59]

Reardon -
And what if that bartender happened to be gay, but a woman??? Most men don't discriminate towards lesbians (I know I don't!) ;)

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 07.10.05 at 08:09]

You are taking an important issue of equal rights and looking for weasel clauses.Equality means equality if a beautiful man can sell a bikini better than any woman,he might get hired because you would'nt be able to tell the difference.It may challenge some people but tolerance of differences is vital.You can solve your morality but must respect others equaly.

[H Reardon on 07.10.05 at 09:18]

Lurker, good post. Consider your statement, "If someone is fired not because of personal ability, but because of sexual orientation, then this is wrong." What if I don't feel that way? Should you be able to force your morality on me? I hesitate to use another example, but what if I have my bar in the heart of Christian Conservative Arkansas and one day my best bartender comes back a converted Muslim, full dress and all. I personally respect his rights to believe whatever he wants, but not sure my patrons will.

Ethiops, I think you have missed my point.

Fullish, I'm with you there, man.

"You can solve your morality but must respect others equaly."

Posted by Big Bad Wolf.

I think you have shown my point. You are forcing your morality on others by saying it is wrong to, for example, fire the gay, black, white, muslim, christian. Forcing people, through legislation, to respect other groups equally will not lead to equality--just tension.

[Raptor on 07.10.05 at 09:19]

The fundamentalist Protestant churches are also evangelical--so they intend to spread the word, i.e., their beliefs of what the word is. The next step in that is influencing politicians and the laws to "save" society and maintain "values" and traditions. And, yes, as someone above mentioned, they don't just stick with the New Testament, they cherry-pick throughout the whole Bible.

One of my professors, who turned out to be a minister in such a church, told me that they cannot back down on the issue of homosexuality, because it is forbidden in the Bible. If they backed down on that, they could be challenged on ALL other literal Biblical beliefs they hold.

Does not make sense to me. I don't believe the Bible should be taken literally.

Check out "What Makes People Gay?" (14 August 2005, Boston Globe) on Google. Homosexuality is no matter of choice. It seems to me that we've gained in medical knowledge a fair amount in the last 2,000 years, and we don't have to rely on the sad ignorance of the past.

Reardon, the legal protection of gays is important in many ways, jobs is just one of them. Some of my gay friends actively worry about their safety and wellbeing. They are often targets of violence. Having legal protection for gays notifies those who would attack because of their own prejudices, ignorance, and stupidity that society and the government stand behind them.

[Raptor on 07.10.05 at 09:21]

I'm tired, I guess. The last sentence above should read "society and the government stand behind gays (them)," --obviously.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 07.10.05 at 09:48]

The higher principle of equal human rights for all kicks in over what is proven to be a prejudice.Obviously each case or complaint would have to stand on its own merits.I think most Western societies are attempting to protect Human rights across the board.Will there be exceptions or ironies,yes there will be but it does not mean that you throw higher principles away.

[H Reardon on 07.10.05 at 10:14]

"Having legal protection for gays notifies those who would attack because of their own prejudices, ignorance, and stupidity that society and the government stand behind them."

Posted by Raptor on 07.10.05 at 09:19

How is this different than the same protections a government gives me if I am beat up by another guy? Are you saying that if I were gay, the other guy should have a higher penalty than if I am not? What if he didn't know I were gay, does he still get the higher penalty?

[Stephen on 07.10.05 at 10:36]

"Forcing people, through legislation, to respect other groups equally will not lead to equality--just tension."

Respect cannot be forced in law (and maybe Premiers should reflect on that....) - but the law should afford protection to all people in creating basic human rights - access to employment, housing, education, freedom of speech. After that step then it would seem appropriate to make individual judgements about whether a person does their job well, pays their rent, is making the grade etc. etc.

To use the example being hypothesised : A bar open to the public must abide by public standards, laws etc. Who you want to serve drinks to (or who serves the drinks)in your own home is your own choice.

The concept of complete "natural" equality and unregulated flourishing of individual rights is unworkable in that human beings don't live in the ideal world but in a real world.

[shipstones on 07.10.05 at 10:41]

To use the example being hypothesised : A bar open to the public must abide by public standards, laws etc. Who you want to serve drinks to (or who serves the drinks)in your own home is your own choice.

Galt, ya won't like this one!

[H Reardon on 07.10.05 at 11:15]

I was thinking the same thing Shipstones. I could use Galt's help here.

[Yet Another Limey on 07.10.05 at 11:26]

'Forcing people, through legislation, to respect other groups equally' is only part of the strategy, the government should also use the media (and themselves) to promote these ideas to society.

Using the bartender example, the bar owner should (be forced to) hire the gay bartender if they are the best candidate for the job. If a couple of bars go bankrupt during the transition phase while the population get used to the change in society then so be it.

In this scenario if you changed gay to black/white you'd probably still have segregation in this country. Should the owner of the spinning wheel be able to hire a black bartender over a more qualified white bartender?

[J Galt on 07.10.05 at 11:43]

All laws should protect individuals and not groups, by affording one group rights you remove individual rights from others.

Gay rights, are wrong, only so far as they trump individual rights. In Hank's example the barowner, in the Rev's example the homeowner.

It is my property an I should be able to rent it to who I see fit. Take for example a drug addict, many people like to paint the addict as a victim of a disease, I do not, want a drug user to rent my home, but if you pass a law granting the addicts certain rights, or "protection" from discrimination, you have removed in some part my individual right to property. And I am forced to rent to them.

My example is not meant to put gays and drug addicts in the same boat, but to highlight as an individual I might find a certain lifestyle unexceptable, drugs, homosexual behaivor, sex out of wedlock, whatever surely I should be free to decide who I wish to live with, rent to, eat with, drink with, what ever, without any group forcing their views on me, just as you should be free from me forcing my views on you.