Today the House passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Joe Knollenberg voted for it. Congratulations Joe, finally something I can actually genuinely praise you for. Way to go. I knew you could do it.
Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 - (Sec. 4) Makes it an unlawful employment practice for covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees) to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated. Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas."
Bruce, you think this was the right thing? Excellent. I take you'll take back all the bad (and personal) things you've said about my support of MCRI - which merely prohibits "preferential treatment" on the basis of race, gender, national origin, and ethnicity?
Glad to see you on board with the equality movement, Bruce.
Absolutely not, Chet, I don't take back anything about your support for the MCRI.
The two situations are completely different.
Why?
You support non-discrimination legislation in the sexual preference area that includes the "prohibits preferential treatment or quotas" phrase, but you oppose that phrase when it comes to race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin?
I'm just not getting your reasoning here, Bruce.
And why would you not take this opportunity to retract at least the personal attacks on me for my support of MCRI. Can you not admit, at least, the possibility that some MCRI supporters could have been ethically motivated even if you believe they reached the wrong conclusion?
Chet, here's why. MCRI, in my opinion, basically says, black people were discriminating against white people and to fix that we need to disavow over 100 years of discrimination.
If it weren't for the 100 years of slavery and lynchings and so forth, perhaps in theory MCRI would be righting a wrong.
I happen to think that to make up for slavery and lynchings and overall discrimination of the worst kind, the least white America could do is come up with a way to give black applicants to U of M a few extra points on their application or give a slight preference to minority companies that get a chance at a state contract. Since America has never and more than likely never will pay financial reparations to black Americans for what we as a pepole did, then I for one was ok with where we were before the MCRI passed through fraudulent methods.
Other than the alleged fraudulent methods, none of your arguments presume mal-intent on the part of MCRI supporters and leaders. I mean, you can admit that you think we're wrong but honorably motivated, can't you. Of course, your arguments assume something about our arguments that I don't believe is true, and you don't even address the question of the whether preferences "work" to "help" anyone, but there's no sense in getting deep into substance here. The historical reparation argument also would mean you oppose preferences to white women, Hispanics, or foreign African immigrants, but that's beside the point.
With regard to "passed through fraudulent methods", what's your real evidence, other than that a judge said we were bad people in 29 pages of "dicta" (not germane to his legal conclusion), while at the same time saying he couldn't take the issue off the ballot. I mean, and I'm agreeing with BAMN here partially, if there really were some kind of "real fraud" (rather than a vague label for political purposes), you'd think he could take the thing off the ballot and should take it off the ballot. The fact that it was allowed on the ballot by 3 separate courts sort of proves no fraud. Judges write political dicta all the time to preserve their futures (this one, a Clinton appointee who might get bumped up to an appellate after 09) - you know that. The bottom line is the ruling that it must stay on the ballot. And besides, the "fraud" charge was based on BAMN's definition of the word "affirmative action" and our definition - a bona fide political opinion disagreement, which, by the way, was vindicated for MCRI by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission on March 7, 2007, when it flip-flopped its opinion to agree with us because it believed that limited the scope of Proposal 2 in its favor.
But, you can call me a liar or fraud all you want. I can handle it.
Why do I get the feeling that Chet doesn't actually support ENDA, which is a law that bars discrimination in hiring, firing, and promotion based on the sexual orientation of the employee or applicant? Why do I get the feeling that he is just using this to promote basically racist attempts to overturn affirmative action? After all, the out-of-state people who financially backed the anti-affirmative action ballot initiative haven't shown the same vigor and enthusiasm for passing ENDA.
I hope Chet is as enthusiastic when ENDA is expanded to protect transgender people from discrimination.
And since Knollenberg isn't likely to be reelected in 2008 and the ENDA bill will be reconsidered in 2009, we aren't likely to hear too much more about from Knollenebrg, but I hope he'll get out there with his Republican friends and urge their support. I'm not holding my breath though.
Joel, it could be that Chet is not sincere in his praise of our agreement on this issue. He's just trying to use it for political purposes. Surprise. Surpise. A Republican using something called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which is anything but, for political purposes.
Reminds of the Blue Sky Act, which allowed more air pollution. When you have someone like Frank Luntz wordsmithing for you, black is white, up is down.
Post a Comment