If ant-discrimination laws should only protect discrimination based on immutable characteristics ...?

Question

Why does it protect against protect against religious discrimination?

Many conservative Christians complain that homosexuality is immutable, and therefore should not be considered a protective category in anti-discrimination law. While I reject that assertion; it's all too well documented that homosexuality is immutable, let's entertain the belief for a moment.

We do know that race is immutable. Except of course in the case of white Hispanics. A white child of Hispanic descent could be adopted when quite young by a white non-Hispanic family. What would they be then?

Anyway, let's assume that race is immutable. Are immutable groups the only ones protected by anti-discrimination law? Religion is certainly a protected category. Is religion immutable? I know FAR more people who have changed religious affiliation than the extreme minority of LGBT folk who have made the extraordinary claim that they have been "cured".

If religion is mutable, should it be a protected category?

Dear Rhio.
You didn't respond AT ALL to the question.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because there is no evidence that it is a disease. If a psychological attribute does not cause hardship or difficulty in living to a significant degree, it is not a disorder.

Homosexuality, on its own does not create difficulty. The only difficulty comes from people who express a hatred toward homosexuals. This is a disordered behavior making it difficult for people to live. Hatred, bigotry and extreme religiosity are far more dangerous "conditions".

Nightwind,
While the decision to believe or not may not come about consciously, which church a Christian attends is a quite conscious choice, especially among protestants.

I looked at your profile. I like what you have to say about the Rede. Not many people get the whole "harm none" thing.

Born Again Catholic
The reason that I'm specifically addressing immutability is because a number of conservative Christian organizations, such as Concerned Women for America, are claiming that homosexuality is mutable, and as such, shouldn't be considered a protected category.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitution, but laws protecting a person from discrimination based on religion are separate. The constitution does not itself and alone protect one from discrimination. The constitution doesn't say that a Jew many not refuse to hire an atheist. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that a law preventing religious discrimination flies in the face of free expression of religion. Indeed, this is what some conservative groups are claiming regarding ENDA.

Bruce,
I'll agree that many homosexuals have dated someone of the opposite sex. Do you believe this is because they are "capable of having a relationship with someone of the opposite sex", or because they are trying to live in a culture which tells them that this is the sort of person they should be dating?

Do you think that in a culture that accepted homosexuality, a gay person might be less likely to date someone of the opposite sex? I do.

Too, you mustn't forget the concept of bisexuality.

Also, Genes are only part of a persons inherited makeup. Not all traits passed from parents to children come from genes. There is the science of epigenetics as well. If your grandfather experienced famine when in his teens, it will alter your life expectancy, through epigenetics. Check it out.

In the end though, homosexuality is only immoral because certain religious groups claim it to be so. It exists in animals incapable of reason as well as humans. Can animals choose to sin?

Answer 1

The purpose of the government that the American Founding Fathers founded was to protect the Natural Rights of the Individual. They reasoned that all human beings--sharing a common nature--had, inherent in that nature, certain attributes and capabilities which they used in order to survive and flourish. A right is defined as "a justifiable claim." They reasoned that each human--being alive--has an exclusive claim to his/her body and mind--his/her own life. Society did not confer life to the individual; Nature did. The individual owes nothing to society, because he doesn't owe his life to society. It is the role of society to protect the indivdiuals in it; to protect their freedom to live according to their nature. This means they have a right to think for themslves (because by nature, they DO, regardless of what anyone does or says), to speak their mind freely. They own their bodies, their time and any thing that they might create, produce--or any service they might render.
The ability to believe whatever one wishes, to speak one's mind, to CHOOSE values and goals, and to pursue them--there are ALL immutable traits of human nature.

Even if were proven that homosexuality is a choice, it would still be protected--on the very same grounds that being a Christian (or a Jew or an Athiest) is a matter of choice. That fact that humans CAN choose is immutable, and THAT right must be protected. As Thomas Jefferson reasoned, so long an one is infringing in the rights of others (that is, stopping them from exercising their rights) no harm is done, and the laws should have nothing to do with any of it.

www.reformmormonism.org

also Visit
www.firstfreedomproductions.com
for more on natural rights and religious freedom

Answer 2

@@@Many conservative Christians complain that homosexuality is immutable, and therefore should not be considered a protective category in anti-discrimination law. While I reject that assertion; it's all too well documented that homosexuality is immutable, let's entertain the belief for a moment.@@@
I already addressed part of this question in your other post. Homosexuals have every right to challenge that view. Looks like they have been, as a result homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted. Even in some churches. Things are changing for the good, to hold on to the past is a step back not forward

@@@We do know that race is immutable. Except of course in the case of white Hispanics. A white child of Hispanic descent could be adopted when quite young by a white non-Hispanic family. What would they be then?@@@
Umm okay. Well there is no such thing as a white child of Hispanic descent. There is such a thing as a caucasion child who may have some genes that are dominate in the Hispanic community. Two Hispanic parents will have a high probability of having a child that share the same phenotype as them, because they both have dominate allele. So a child born of a Hispanic couple will come out white (with different phenotypes from the parents) because both parents had to have at least one allele that is common among caucasion. In order for the caucasion characteristics to be expressed two recessive alleles must come together.

Anyway, I suggest you look over the Mendelian Cross.

@@@Anyway, let's assume that race is immutable. Are immutable groups the only ones protected by anti-discrimination law? Religion is certainly a protected category. Is religion immutable? I know FAR more people who have changed religious affiliation than the extreme minority of LGBT folk who have made the extraordinary claim that they have been "cured".@@@
Although I agree that homosexuals should be protected against discrimination and should have the same rights and freedoms as other people, I do not entertain the notion that discrimination against race and homosexuality is on the same caliber.

A black man cannot change the fact that he is black. Unless he is Michael Jackson, even then he will always still be black and without chemical means will revert somewhat back to his original appearance. Homosexuality is a feeling, a feeling that one loves a member of the same sex. No one can directly look at someone and tell them what they are feeling. Plus many homosexuals have pretended to be straight for years in order to have a family or because of the stigma of coming out. A black man, who is light enough to appear white, doesn’t have to worry about discrimination because others are viewing him as a white male. He does have to live in fear of being outed, when that happens people will view him as a black man. Homosexuality is almost the same thing. However a homosexual doesn’t have to reveal what their sexual orientation is. This doesn’t mean that they should be ashamed; it simply means that it is not required.

Edit:
Epigenetics have nothing to do with famine. You need to review epigenetics yourself

Answer 3

After mulling this over for a bit ...

The argument is being made on the basis that mutability is a prerequisite for official civil rights protection. It isn't. Age isn't immutable, by definition; it's constantly changing, as is the nature of age-related discrimination as one moves through youth to old age. One doesn't choose one's age, of course. Neither are disabilities chosen (covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), though they can be mutable (curable) in some cases and some do result from engaging in risky behavior as a matter of choice. Then there's the fact that pregnancy is protected at the federal level by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act -- where's the immutability here?

Religion is mutable, but the basis of protecting it under anti-discrimination laws is the Constitution itself, in the first amendment. It's already part of the bedrock.

Basically, I'm in agreement with you. I believe that there is indeed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that this should not be the case in a country founded on the principles of individual liberty. I didn't have to be African-American to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- just an American who took "liberty and justice for all" to heart. Same here. And I am one conservative Christian, for what it's worth.

Edit: Yes, the laws are separate. But with the Constitution itself spelling it out in the First Amendment, protecting religious liberty isn't based on whether or not it is immutable. It was immutability that we were addressing here, and (I think) we've proven that it's the wrong hook upon which to hang objections to anti-discrimination laws.

CWA fought tooth-and-nail against NOW and the Equal Rights Amendment and considered the defeat of the amendment's ratification in 1982 its personal victory. (Although the bill has been re-introduced in every session of Congress since then, it basically sits in committee.) This, in fact, was the entire reason for CWA's formation. CWA/Eagle Forum is still railing against ERA. (Eagle Forum's web page is trumpeting "ERA will take away Social Security rights of wives and widows!") However, its actual political clout one generation later is arguably much less robust than it was -- not that a resurgence isn't possible, if it dusts off the ERA arsenal and tactics and applies them to a sexual orientation anti-discrimination amendment.

Answer 4

With today's technology gender is no longer immutable either, but it's still part of anti-discrimination laws.

I don't think discrimination should be based on mutability. The first amendment guarantees people right to free religion. THAT seems like a logical reason to include it in anti-discrimination laws: be lieve the right to worship freely is a basic human right.

And while a person's religion can change, it is not exactly a conscious change. While we may come to believe in God or not believe in God, we don't really choose to believe or not believe...we just either do or we don't. we can act like we believe, but that's not the same as believing. Belief can change, but it is not a strictly voluntary process.

Answer 5

Anti-discrimination laws protect both immutable characteristics like race and human rights, like freedom of religion.

Homosexuality is not a right because rights are endowments of the Creator, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. God certainly doesn't endow us with sexual immorality, which "makes a man unclean."

Homosexuality is also not immutable or predestined, regardless of the faddish memes currently circulating. There are at least three lines of evidence that militate against homosexual predestination.

Studies of identical twins show that if one twin is homosexual, his identical brother shares his orientation only 38% of the time. Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality were inherited like eye color, in 100% of cases the identical twin brother would be homosexual.

Other evidence shows homosexuality to be learned. Surveys indicate that 90% of homosexual men have dated women and two-thirds have had sexual intercourse, showing that homosexuals are capable of normal sexual interest.

We also know that sexual habits change, which means they are learned and unlearned. Some married men leave their wives and children for a homosexual boyfriend, and some homosexual men eventually marry and lose any interest in performing sex on other men.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 6

Anti-discrimination laws should protect anyone that could be harmed by negative stereotyping. If the group characteristic can be identified by others it is a possible basis for discrimination against an individual.

Having said that, I believe anti-discrimination laws should apply primarily to the government...discrimination by the government be it for race, gender, religious affiliation and yes, even sexual orientation is wrong...and this includes giving AND witholding benefits/services. The government should not discriminate for or against any group.

The solution to discrimination by private citizens (including people that own businesses that employ other people) doesn't lie in law but in economics. Discrimination is an economically stupid decision...just look at the response of the US automakers to the threat of Japanese competition for decades...they didn't think the Japanese were a threat because they viewed them as inferior to the genius of US companies...by the time they recognized their mistake, a few companies were in financial ruin and the rest had lost a significant amount of market share! People that choose to discriminate for any reason, I say let them do it. I wouldn't eat at a restaurant that said "whites only"...few people would...the company might survive but it would never grow. How can it be better to force that bigot to serve (and/or hire) people he hates...he'll still hate but it will be a lot harder for the victims to identify his true feelings and they could end up helping him line his pockets. Thanks, but I'd rather know right up front is an employer (or a company) doesn't like me...why would I want to work for or buy from a company that hates me?

This is the solution to discrimination...if a bigot doesn't want to hire members of a particular group, it's a pretty good sign that he wouldn't see those people as a threat if they decided to compete with him! ...and we all vote with our dollars. The law won't change the mind of the bigot, but being beaten at his own game by the object of his bigotry might alter his perception!

Answer 7

Any trait that has no actual bearing on job performance should be banned as a basis for discrimination in hiring. Similarly with other scenarios of discrimination.

Mutable - immutable - doesn't matter when we're talking about unjust discrimination.

That's what I think.

Answer 8

narth is hardly a reliable source, not to mention you didn't even address the question at all.

My opinion is that religion should be a protected category, as long as you don't expect the right to make a big deal about it or get special privileges, because after all anyone can make a wacky cult.

Answer 9

I've wondered this myself. Especially since I successfully left the conservative Christian lifestyle over ten years ago, and there are lots of us, and we don't even make our livings as professional ex-Christians as, ahem, most ex-gays seem to do.

Answer 10

I can't answer your question because I don't believe religion is a good thing. God hates religions. They only deviate from what God intended for the human race.