Jump to content
RamSack

The Equality Act - Do you support it?

The Equality Act  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support efforts to ban LGBTQ discrimination to the Equality Act?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      6
    • Undecided
      0


Recommended Posts

I'm curious what others think prior to it becoming a big story.  In other words, think for yourself instead of echoing whatever your favorite politician advocates.  This poll is private.

Generally, Democrats support it and Republicans are opposed, but it's unclear on where Trump stands.  Per the article, in 2000 Trump said ...he liked "the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation."

"It would be simple. It would be straightforward," he said. "Amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans — it’s only fair."

Here's the article:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/democrats-reintroduce-equality-act-ban-lgbtq-discrimination-n982771

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully support this type of legislation and it is certainly needed but I also believe there should be certain exemptions. For instance, entities and organizations that are religious in mission or charter should not be forced to employ LGBTQ individuals. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I fully support this type of legislation and it is certainly needed but I also believe there should be certain exemptions. For instance, entities and organizations that are religious in mission or charter should not be forced to employ LGBTQ individuals. 

Can of worms

Closed  [Open]

 

Personal opinion, sexual orientation should be included.  No one should be favored (which means I am against affirmative action), and no one should be excluded or marginalized based on anything more than merit and personal character in society, as an individual.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Can of worms

Closed  [Open]

 

Personal opinion, sexual orientation should be included.  No one should be favored (which means I am against affirmative action), and no one should be excluded or marginalized based on anything more than merit and personal character in society, as an individual.

In a perfect world, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary.  Agreed.  We also don't live in a perfect world.  Latest example is the college admission cheating scandal.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alum93 said:

In a perfect world, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary.  Agreed.  We also don't live in a perfect world.  Latest example is the college admission cheating scandal.  

But with the college admission scandal that’s more of an example of the need for affirmative action based on economic circumstances, not based on racial circumstances.  Most white people cant afford to bribe their kids into school.  I think AA based on economics would do more to balance things out than based on racial lines.  

  • Cheers 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RamSack said:

I'm curious what others think prior to it becoming a big story.  In other words, think for yourself instead of echoing whatever your favorite politician advocates.  

I would be all for LGBQ having equal protection.  The T part of it is where I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mugtang said:

But with the college admission scandal that’s more of an example of the need for affirmative action based on economic circumstances, not based on racial circumstances.  Most white people cant afford to bribe their kids into school.  I think AA based on economics would do more to balance things out than based on racial lines.  

Merit-based and need-based scholarships can wrap that up though.  Even worse than the college admission scandal is the Harvard Asian exclusion scandal.  Harvard didn't want to have so many Asians, who had better test scores than everyone else, so they modified their admission standards for them and lowered black and Latin to balance things out.  It is a private school, so I guess that can work when they pay a lot of their students way, but it is pretty startling.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

I would be all for LGBQ having equal protection.  The T part of it is where I'm not so sure.

T shouldn't even be necessary technically. It seems like an amendment that replaces the notion of (biological) sex with gender would be all that's needed to make sure trans and non-binary people enjoy equal protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Merit-based and need-based scholarships can wrap that up though.  Even worse than the college admission scandal is the Harvard Asian exclusion scandal.  Harvard didn't want to have so many Asians, who had better test scores than everyone else, so they modified their admission standards for them and lowered black and Latin to balance things out.  It is a private school, so I guess that can work when they pay a lot of their students way, but it is pretty startling.

Asians make up 6% of the US population - but 17% of Harvard undergrads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Asians make up 6% of the US population - but 17% of Harvard undergrads. 

Ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Ok?

Quote

The Supreme Court later ruled that racial quotas were unconstitutional. But the high court also concluded that race could be used as one among a number of factors in university admissions. Race-conscious admissions allow universities to consider how an applicant’s race may have affected their access to resources and opportunities during their pre-college education. 

However, the universities that employ these policies must first show that existing race-neutral admissions (or an admissions process with no official consideration of race whatsoever) prevents them from enrolling a sufficiently diverse class of students to achieve a key goal: an educational experience that benefits from diversity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

T shouldn't even be necessary technically. It seems like an amendment that replaces the notion of (biological) sex with gender would be all that's needed to make sure trans and non-binary people enjoy equal protection.

What about CSUsexuals like Lofazz? 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our laws should not allow discrimination against anyone, but there also shouldn’t be special rights for anyone. You can’t have it both ways. That’s inequality. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the universities that employ these policies must first show that existing race-neutral admissions (or an admissions process with no official consideration of race whatsoever) prevents them from enrolling a sufficiently diverse class of students to achieve a key goal: an educational experience that benefits from diversity.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, alum93 said:

However, the universities that employ these policies must first show that existing race-neutral admissions (or an admissions process with no official consideration of race whatsoever) prevents them from enrolling a sufficiently diverse class of students to achieve a key goal: an educational experience that benefits from diversity.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

All fine and good if you are anyone who isn't Asian, but is it not still an exclusionary policy?  Is lowering baselines for some while raising baselines for others what we want?  I can't broadly agree with it. 

  • Like 3
  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

What about CSUsexuals like Lofazz? 

No protection needed! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Asians make up 6% of the US population - but 17% of Harvard undergrads. 

So? Why is this a problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, East Coast Aztec said:

All fine and good if you are anyone who isn't Asian, but is it not still an exclusionary policy?  Is lowering baselines for some while raising baselines for others what we want?  I can't broadly agree with it. 

I think what you are getting at is there is no perfect solution to force diversity in our current society.  Too long a list to go in to, but wealthy have a head start.  Better schools, better tutors, can game system so to speak. Connections to help get kids into best colleges is just one tiny example.  Connections to get kids starting jobs in industry.  The list is endless.  Affirmative action wasn't created for no reason.  It also was an imperfect solution to an imperfect world.  Just one small step trying to make the world a better place.  If we lived in a perfect world where people didn't look at skin color, everyone got the same education from K-12, everyone had same access and were judged with no bias for college admissions, then things would be different.  We don't.  Just take a look at the Republican Congressmen and tell me that represents a cross section of our country.  It doesn't.  And it isn't by accident.  Change is hard and scary.  Heck, our country is just getting started and we've already seen a civil war that resulted in the elimination of slavery,  women having to wait just for the right to vote,  beatdowns and worse to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc, etc.  At the end of the day, diversity in our universities and workplace is a great thing and we should strive to increase it, not turn our heads because the world isn't fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bsu_alum9 said:

Asians make up 6% of the US population - but 17% of Harvard undergrads. 

And if all things were Equal and skin color and race was not a concern, they would make up a higher percentage of Harvard undergrads.

2 hours ago, mugtang said:

Ok?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against special rights.

If they are equal then they are equal.   Let them be equal, why do they need a law to say it if they are equal to begin with?

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×