E.D., I wonder if the line we might draw is between those enterprises that perform an overt social function and those perform a solely personal function?
I.e. from my perspective work places and schools have a well defined social function, whereas private clubs do not, necessarily.
2009-01-28 19:44:19
Agreed, E.D. And my comment wasn't meant to reflect otherwise. But does this mean, therefore, that you don't believe the State has anything to say about a private company firing someone because they suspect or it comes out that that person is homosexual?
I'm not arguing for no boundaries, I'm arguing for boundaries where they make sense and I can't personally find any logical reason why a private business can't fire someone based on their sexual orientation (something that seems obvious on the face of it) but a school can kick two students out based on the same evidence.
2009-01-28 19:21:18
Isn't the real point here that because of a lack of legal rights these schools are "allowed" to do something that for anyone opposed to discrimination based on traits that others find personally unacceptable is morally reprehensible. The legality of the issue is a loop hole, its tertiary to the issue at hand which is that people shouldn't be kicked out of schools for their sexual orientation anymore than they should for the colour of their skin or country of origin.
Freddie notes the legality issue as primary because it enables this loopholing that with a casual glance seems just plain wrong. So getting into the legal minutia about private vs. public seems, to me, at best a distraction. And telling schools who they can and cannot kick out based on certain human rights is no more authoritarian than telling businesses who they can and cannot hire/fire based on the same criteria.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
E.D., I wonder if the line we might draw is between those enterprises that perform an overt social function and those perform a solely personal function?
I.e. from my perspective work places and schools have a well defined social function, whereas private clubs do not, necessarily.
Agreed, E.D. And my comment wasn't meant to reflect otherwise. But does this mean, therefore, that you don't believe the State has anything to say about a private company firing someone because they suspect or it comes out that that person is homosexual?
I'm not arguing for no boundaries, I'm arguing for boundaries where they make sense and I can't personally find any logical reason why a private business can't fire someone based on their sexual orientation (something that seems obvious on the face of it) but a school can kick two students out based on the same evidence.
Isn't the real point here that because of a lack of legal rights these schools are "allowed" to do something that for anyone opposed to discrimination based on traits that others find personally unacceptable is morally reprehensible. The legality of the issue is a loop hole, its tertiary to the issue at hand which is that people shouldn't be kicked out of schools for their sexual orientation anymore than they should for the colour of their skin or country of origin.
Freddie notes the legality issue as primary because it enables this loopholing that with a casual glance seems just plain wrong. So getting into the legal minutia about private vs. public seems, to me, at best a distraction. And telling schools who they can and cannot kick out based on certain human rights is no more authoritarian than telling businesses who they can and cannot hire/fire based on the same criteria.