UPDATE: Comments on this thread are closed.
—
So, there was me, grumbling that my post about Durkheim’s “tyranny of the majority,” the Overton window, and the general concept of politics as rationalization, had become a thread about whether or not rights for gays hurt people anyone, and then I realized, that’s a silly thing to do.
Meet the new post, which is the post for debating whether or not gay rights hurt people anyone. I submit that they do not. Robert and Sailorman submit that they do. Which people Who? queried I. How, and why?
Replies Robert:
Well, vis a vis discrimination laws:
Their identity: People who own rental property in a number of cities (Berkeley and San Francisco among them) which have passed ordinances adding sexual orientation to the list of banned categories of discrimination in housing.
The harm done: Their ability to dispose of their property as they wished – specifically, to have a degree of control over the people living in their house – was constrained. In addition, their ability to behave in non-discriminatory but carefree ways is impinged. Instead of not caring at all about the sexual orientation of an applicant, a landlord now has to care about it even if he or she has no intention or desire to discriminate.
Some of those people, a lot of them even, didn’t want to discriminate in that fashion anyway; others (usually for religious reasons, though not always) did. Even the former group is negatively impacted by the law – the creation of a category of discrimination opens them to false claims (whether malicious or simple misunderstandings) of such discrimination even when they did not intend to discriminate.
Pre-ordinance, Landlord X might reject Tenant Y for some bona fide reason, or if he just didn’t like the cut of her jib. Post-ordinance, if X rejects Y and Y happens to be gay, Y can make a claim (however implausible) that X discriminated on the basis of orientation. X must now take exceptional care in rejecting gay applicants for bona fide reasons – particularly if through happenstance X ends up renting to a straight tenant instead.
So, what Robert is doing here is asking for “can’t refuse to rent house to gay people” a.k.a. “landlord can’t dispose property as zie wishes” to be defined as “hurt.”
I’m opposed to this definition, because of a metaphor that I’m going to steal from The Angry Black Woman, whose archives I spent a shocking amount of yesterday reading — on account of her being so brilliant, and all.
If a child has ten pieces of candy, and his sister has no pieces of candy, and there are only ten pieces of candy in the house, and his mother takes five pieces of the child’s candy away [ETA: to give to his sister], then the child losing candy will cry. The child losing candy is not losing rights. The child losing candy is not being oppressed. The child losing candy is *experiencing* hurt, but he is not actually being hurt.
Privelege is something we often only notice when it’s lacking. A space that priveleges both men and women equally will be perceived as discriminating against men because it does not cater to their interests.
And so here.
So, please shift the argument about gay rights and hurt here, and please wander to the other location if you want to talk about politics as rationalization, the evils of extremism, or the tyranny of the majority, or kittens.
Oh, okay, you can talk about kittens in either thread. I’ll start.
UPDATE: Sailorman would like the following quotes to speak for his position:
Take gay rights and abortion rights, for example: they seem pretty obvious to ME, and I don’t much give a shit [if] granting them pisses the hell out of some people.
I don’t doubt, though, there are people whose lives have been personally worsened by the granting of abortion rights or gay rights. I just don’t care about them.
I apologize for the implication that Sailorman is trying to take rights away from gay people. It was unintended. I simply disagree with him; I do doubt that there are people is anyone whose life has been personally worsened by the granting of gay rights.
I like kittens, but don’t care much for most cats.
I can’t think of a definition for “hurt” that would leave out the disposition of property, or leave out having half your property taken away, and still be recognizable as “hurt”. Perhaps you can; I’d like to read it.
Puppies are welcome. :)
I’m headed away from my desk for a bit, but I’ll take a swing at defining what I mean later.
that kitten is very very cute
The same thing is true for disabled people and minorities, though, right? A landlord can’t discriminate against them based on their disability or race. The law already protects people based on gender, race, disability, age, etc. in these type of situations. Unless you’re a homophobe, I don’t see why adding “sexual orientation” to this list would make things any different. I certainly don’t understand the “hurt” part.
On another note … KITTENS.
Random factoid–I identify as radical–it’s just that I identify “not being coerced by physical force” as much more primary than most here.
My argument ISN’T that “gay rights”, specifically, hurt people. It is rather that the kinds of “rights” sought by many “gay rights” activists are not properly rights, and harm others no matter who manages to gain them. (In other words, I think non-discrimination benefitting religion, or benefitting parents, is also harmful, even though they benefit me.) Basically, I don’t think that there exists any right to be treated by others as you would like, or as they treat someone else; they have a duty not to physically harm you, but no duty to associate with you, or to sell to you, or buy from you.
Hey, mandolin, what’s up with this? I know you and I don’t get along all that well, but this is a bit much.
First, you’re deliberately conflating my position with Robert. I am not Robert. I’m prominent at the beginning of the thread, but the quoted text doesn’t re[resent my position.
Second, you (also deliberately, I assume) failed to mention the context of my quote.
THIS is an accurate summary of my position:
This is NOT an accurate summary of my position:
That “mini summary” is technically true. But it’s false in reality because of what it omits. It makes me sound like a supporter of fundie rights, when I’m obviously a supporter of gay rights.
If you don’t want me to post on your threads, just say so and I won’t. But when you pull my stuff out of context (and there is NO need to have done so–the quote was short and readily available) you’re playing dirty pool. And that’s bullshit.
You maintain that there are people hurt by gay rights; that’s all I meant. I’ll modify the post if you like.
Robert wasn’t arguing for fundie politics either, I didn’t think.
I withdraw the comment I made on the other thread. I think I mistook you and Stentor for other people. My apologies, again.
My “I’m sorry” needed a workout. ;-)
The law already protects people based on gender, race, disability, age, etc. in these type of situations. Unless you’re a homophobe, I don’t see why adding “sexual orientation” to this list would make things any different.
The people who object don’t have religious beliefs that condemn the behavior of women, people of other races, the disabled, or the elderly. Those restrictions do not impinge upon the religious persons’ beliefs.
SamChevre is right that there’s an intrinsic harm to everyone, regardless of whose ox is involved, to these kinds of rules and regulations. The harm I’ve described is specific to people holding a particular viewpoint, or set of viewpoints.
My position is that there need to be some regulations to correct serious imbalances of rights; in theory, I think that people should be free to racially discriminate in employment, but in practice the history and the harms are too great on one side. When it comes to gays, the harms are there on the one side, but there is also an affirmative right on the other side of the equation, a right that is mostly lacking when it comes to race. (As far as I know, no numerically significant religion requires racial animus.)
So I accept the intrusion on liberty the rules impose in the area of racial discrimination; it’s justifiable and the people whose liberty is most infringed weren’t on real solid ground anyway. And also were mostly assholes. But I can’t see overriding the rights of the religious minority to their freedom of conscience in this case. (And yes, I do think that the indigenous churches should be able to use peyote or what have you, and for the exact same reason.)
I don’t consider that fundie politics; I don’t know whether you (Mandolin) do or not.
I think in many places there are clauses built into anti-discrimination laws regarding landlord/tenant rights, that allows for a lot of lee-way when the rental housing is in close proximity and/or attached to the landlord’s own home. In these cases the landlord does have a lot more say about who they rent to, and doesn’t have to go through all sorts of contortions to justify their choices.
Now, if a landlord doesn’t want to rent to gay men or lesbians (do they ask about bisexuals on the application form?!?) on religious grounds, no matter where the rental property is…well, that’s wrong.
In Orthodox Judaism it’s very important to avoid embarrassing people, and it’s equally important to offer hospitality, so I don’t know who they’re kidding if they think they’re going to get away with discrimination on religious grounds, if they are truly religious. Same with most Christian sects. Every religion has a strong mandate to feel compassion for ones fellow human beings, whether they are co-religionists or not. Religious bigots can hide, but they can’t run from God forever.
The question is phrased in a way that implies that “people” is a category that “gay” does not belong to. This is incorrect, and I think says a lot about people who posit the idea that gay rights could hurt “people”.
It can certainly be read that way. I’ll change the phrasing.
Your metaphor doesn’t work for me – if I have ten of something, and then I have five of something, it would seem to me I’ve been hurt. If your point is what I’ve lost I didn’t really deserve in the first place (children being given candy) then I think I get it. To me, anti-discrimination laws are part of the cost of doing business. Landlords aren’t hurt by their expansion any more than if the city decided every apartment needed two smoke detectors instead of one. The landlords can bear the cost or they can get out of the apartment business.
Oh, and it’s “privilege”.
Nor do I. But I don’t see the difficulty people have in acknowledging that anti-discrimination laws impinge upon the interests of homophobes (and bigots in general). Amanda Marcotte correctly observes that it’s inappropriate to talk about “people” as if this category excludes gays. It’s similarly inappropriate to talk about people as if the category excludes bigots.
Bigots are people, too. You don’t have to like them to acknowledge that they have interests.
Hypocrisy check: Do we REALLY think it should be illegal to discriminate in employment and housing on the basis of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc? Imagine that the next time I quit my job or leave my apartment, my boss or landlord could sue me on the theory that I was leaving because my boss/landlord is female, or black, or disabled, or gay, or whathaveyou. And if the landlord or employer can persuade a jury, the remedy isn’t money damages; no, it’s specific performance. I’m compelled to continue living there and working there.
Maybe on balance this would be good public policy. But on balance. There are trade-offs here; it doesn’t hurt us to acknowledge it.
I’m with Robert and Olney here. I expect every parent of more than one kid has been in this situation. Yes, sometimes I have to redistribute the wealth. Yes, more egalitarian outcomes often have desirable social consequences. But I’ve never been able to convince kid that she didn’t have an interest in keeping her own stuff. It’s basically a “because I said so” moment.
Hypocrisy check: Do we REALLY think that redistributing wealth would not impinge upon any interest of ours? That is, none of us has an interest in receiving more than $6329/yr? (That’s based on gross national income, reflecting all benefits from whatever source.)
I’m not saying that the world wouldn’t be a better place with a more equitable distribution of wealth. But again, I would have to say that there are trade-offs to this policy. And I would have to stop saying it on the web.
Robert:
That’s a very political position. A populist position. A practical position. And I can’t deny that civil rights laws had to achieve some level of popular acceptance before they could get enacted. (And even more before they could get enforced).
But as a theoretical model, I don’t embrace the idea that liberty interests should vary depending on the whims of a majority. Nor do I embrace the implication that civil rights were a bad idea before they achieved a level of popular acceptance. So I’ll raise two objections.
First, Robert’s argument suggests that we should make civil rights decisions based on a balancing of the interests of bigots and the interests of the victims of bigotry. It suggests that if racism becomes more popular, or more heartfelt, or if blacks become a smaller portion of the population, it might someday become appropriate to repeal civil rights laws.
In contrast, I justify civil rights laws as reflecting a judgment that the benefits to society of protecting people from certain types of discrimination outweigh the cost to society of impinging on the interests of bigots. This calculation does not depend upon the numbers of people in the oppressed class or the bigot class. Recall that generally civil rights laws were upheld not on a 14th Amendment equal protection argument, but on the basis of the Commerce Clause. That is, we defend civil rights not to promote the interest of blacks, but to promote the interests of society in general. The benefits arising from permitting blacks to participate in society accrue to society as a whole – blacks, bigots and everyone.
Second, Robert’s argument suggests that views based on opinions bearing the label “religion” deserve more deference than views that do not bear such a label. In short, Robert promotes the idea that government should discriminate explicitly on the basis of religion. I find this view itself to reflect a form of bigotry. But I cannot deny that it finds periodic support in the Supreme Court.
And no, I don’t.
If peyote is dangerous, then restrict it for everyone; if it’s not too dangerous, then permit it for everyone. It’s called equal protection.
But the idea that two people may engage in identical behavior yet the government would discriminates in sanctioning them on the basis of religion, I find astonishing. The idea that government would choose whether or not to seek a criminal prosecution based on some collective – rather than an individual – analysis of people’s motivations, I find appalling. And the fact that Robert would embrace this legal theory I find dumbfounding.
And maybe even off-topic. But definitely dumbfounding.
This thread is hateful. I’m surprised that folks aren’t seeing that.
Thank you Mandolin; I appreciate the clarification.
Personally, I’m not all that vested in the outcome of this debate. Whether or not one, a few, some, or many people are affected negatively by gay rights don’t have any meaningful effect on my support of said rights.
However, in the context of the other thread, and what I said regarding choosing policy over what I believe to be factually true, I think it’s relevant.
So:
There are certainly people who claim their SUBJECTIVE experience is that they are harmed by gay rights. They can’t sleep at night; they are upset; they are distressed. They do not like the existence of what they see as a major moral evil.
They are apparently affected, and distressed, in the same manner that I am when I read that Scalia thinks sodomy should be illegal, or that some state has specifically allowed gay discrimination legislation, or denied civil unions, or…
I think my distress is real. Therefore I think their distress is real as well. I just don’t care about theirs.
Well, it strikes me as hateful.
I’m going to concede the word “hurt” to Robert. “Hurt” is an ambiguous word. “Hurt,” in the way I was using it, was closer to injury or oppression. However, “hurt” also encompasses things like hurt feelings. Certainly, I believe there are some individuals whose feelings are hurt by gay rights. And while I think that’s assinine, since hurt feelings are subjective, I certainly can’t claim they don’t exist.
I do not believe that there is anyone who is oppressed by having their right to oppress others taken away. And that’s what’s being argued here by some of the folks, it seems to me — that it’s inherently oppressive not to be able to oppress other people. I disagree with this concept, even if the person posing it adds that, “It’s okay to be oppressive in that way.” I don’t agree that it’s oppressive or injurious in the least.
Bigots are people. Acting on bigotry to impede the freedom of other people is not a right. When anyone accepts the concept that the systemic oppression of homosexuals is just like deciding who to hang out with at a party, that’s… well, it’s buying into an argument I first encountered in a handbook that’s online for teaching Republicans how to argue, and as far as I can tell the argument functions on several principles:
1) The condensation of the term discrimination as it is used politically, and the term discrimination as it is used in regard to taste.
2) An acknowledgement that civil rights have become important enough to the majority of the populace that successful arguments must incorporate the language of civil rights.
This is one of the conservative arguments that I find most intellectually bankrupt. I first encountered it a few years ago when I was working in the classroom of a lesbian teacher who was targetted by Christian parents who argued that an 8×11 black and white print-out hung a at the front of the room which said, “Respect All Families,” was oppressing them religiously.
Christians cannot be oppressed because they are not being permitted to impede other people’s freedom through bigotry, anymore than white people are oppressed by reverse racism. It’s a logical impossibility. There is no system of oppression which is threatening to injure or impede the lives of Christians. Christians have no need to fear for life, limb, and continued ability to participate in the community based on their religion. 80% of people in the United States are Christian, and they nearly all the political representation in government.
Despite the fact that it’s a common claim that Christians are oppressed, this has no basis in reality. I refuse allow them [edited to clarify pronoun: Christian homophobes] to reframe the issue of gay rights as some kind of balance between gay people and Christian people.
Yes, it’s true, when Christians who are homophobic, and who have previously enjoyed the privelege of being able to make sure that gay people shut up and stay in the closet, are no longer afforded this privelege, it seems like injury. It seems like oppression. In exactly the same way, many white men feel they are being oppressed when they are denied the priveleges that have customarily come with their color and gender, such as being more likely to be hired than their dark or female counterparts. These people may be subjectively experiencing hurt feelings, but they are not being injured or oppressed.
Gay rights injure no one. Gay rights oppress no one. Anyone who feels they are being oppressed or injured by gay rights is reacting to an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.
[ETA: This comment is America-centric, and 2007-centric. I’m sure that Christians can and are and have been oppressed in other times and places.]
“There are certainly people who claim their SUBJECTIVE experience is that they are harmed by gay rights. They can’t sleep at night; they are upset; they are distressed. They do not like the existence of what they see as a major moral evil.”
It sounds like we’re on the same page. I apologize for the use of the ambiguous term.
“This thread is hateful. I’m surprised that folks aren’t seeing that.”
I already mentioned that I agree it’s hateful. What would you see as an appropriate remedy for that? Is this conversation so hateful as to need to be shut down, in your opinion? Is there any virtue in allowing ugliness to be on the surface here, for the purpose of rebuttal? (I want to acknowledge that I may be part of the hatefulness you’re describing, since I don’t know whether what you find hateful about the conversation is what I find hateful about the conversation. I’m sure there’s an argument to be made that I’m othering.) Does the acknowledgement of hatefulness mitigate the hatefulness on the thread?
It’s hateful enough that a rebuttal would be harmful to me.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to classify ‘harm’ as ‘meaningful, real, actual harm’ in which case I don’t think that there’s a good argument to be made for gay rights causing harm to anyone.
Sure, they may cause mental/emotional distress to some folks, but at the same time, I think that it’s their bigotry as much as the rights themselves causing that harm. I can’t control what you think or feel, I can just control what I do and (somewhat) what we do as a society.
If what we do as a society decreases reduces actual harm to one group of folks by reducing discrimination, and increases ‘harm’ to another group of folks by tweaking their bigotry, I have a hard time seeing that as either actual harm or, in any case, harm we’ve caused.
—Myca
Disingenuousness check: Sorry, no. Specific performance in employment generally is not the remedy. You know why? [You do, don’t you.] Because that’s endentured servitude – upon which courts very much frown.
Further, specific performance in landlord/tenant relations is a tenant’s, not a landlord’s, rememdy. Point me to the case, any case anywhere, where a landlord has won specific performance, forcing a tenant to continue to reside in a rental, instead of damages. Give me a citation and I’ll pull it up from Westlaw or LexisNexis.
Don’t confuse the non-lawyers here with misapplied concepts.
——–
Mandolin, I’m with Q Grrl. 100%.
Nobody:
That’s not the full equation, though. As Robert pointed out, the cost to society is greater than the cost to bigots of not being allowed to act in certain bigoted ways. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that property rights should, in some hypothetical world where this could be done costlessly, be abridged for the sake of preventing discrimination, we still have to account for the costs associated with false charges of discrimination, whether frivolous or mistaken, as well as the costs (opportunity and accounting) associated with proactively fending off such charges. Even legitimate claims of discrimination take resources to litigate.
The less actual discrimination there is (or, rather, would be in the absence of anti-discrimination laws), the greater the likelihood that the costs outweigh the benefits. I suspect that discrimination is unlikely to be a huge problem in places where there’s enough local support to get it banned (though this doesn’t necessarily apply to the application of federal anti-discrimination laws to the South in the ’60s). Was finding housing really a problem for homosexuals in San Francisco and Berkeley?
Invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause is the judicial equivalent of hand-waving. It’s what judges use when they can’t find legitimate Constitutional justification to rule the way they want to.
There is no conceivable law that doesn’t carry a potential “false charges” negative. That’s not a rational reason not to have laws.
Nor do anti-discrimination laws exist only in San Fransisco. We just passed a major anti-discrimination law here in Oregon; believe me, Oregon doesn’t lack for bigots who hate gays.
Holy shit.
I was just trying to discuss the moderate v. extreme position, which in the context I used it pretty much referred to using “no effect” instead of “no effect worth caring about.”
I apologize for any part I had in a thread that is putting these things on the table. It wasn’t my intent that gay rights, the appropriateness of said rights, or the benefits of said rights, were on the table at all. As I have made clear numerous times, I am fully in support of said rights.
oops.
(hides head and runs away)
“I suspect that discrimination is unlikely to be a huge problem in places where there’s enough local support to get it banned”
And with this bit of ridiculousness (the situation I described above happened in the Bay Area, thank you, and the teacher was eventually harrassed out of the district), I’m closing the thread.
The humanity of gay people is not an appropriate subject for a tug-of-war. I acknowledge my fault in conceding this framing, but at least I can remedy it to some extent by refusing to support the bile any longer. Comments are closed.
Pingback: No Facts Which Offend Me May Exist « Creative Destruction