What a load of tripe!

So you believe that all homosexuals should be celibate, in order to preserve your sensibilities? We've seen how well that works for the Church.

"What if EVERYONE moved to Canada?!?! That would DESTROY American society! Moving to Canada is IMMORAL!!! CLOSE THE BORDER!!!" Get real. Show me the victim.

As for the stuff in Washington, that's news to me, but even if it WERE true, how is it somehow "better" if he were propositioning women? The whole thing about "they're not going to touch it because it deals with homosexuality" is totally made up. Show me the quote from a reporter saying he was reluctant.

As far as what this all says about the U.S., I believe it says that, for the moment, we are still the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave."

- Sexual choice is not the same kind of category as age, gender, race, etc. Efforts to give it the same hands-off treatment in hiring decisions are ill-founded. People cannot choose their age, gender, race, or national origin. People should not be forced to choose one creed or another. However, people can choose whether and how to ACT on what society still considers inappropriate desires for the same sex. Therefore, it is as reasonable to consider acting on same-sex attraction in the hiring process as it is to consider other actions taken by prospective hires.
- Laws that force everyone to consider acting on same-sex attraction a "legitimate choice" are not in society's best interest and are not even in the interest of people who choose to act on this attraction.
-- Many workplaces, especially small ones, won't be able to swallow a legal position that forbids them to consider sexual choice when arranging the workplace, law or not. Companies consider how personalities will fit together when building a team. A boss should be able to reject a jerk. But, what if the jerk has a drinking or drug problem? There are movements to label this a disability and therefore off-limits in hiring decisions. What if the person is overbearing and but claims rejection due to the choice to act on same-sex attraction? What if your impressionable relative is on the payroll? Business should be able to take past behavior into account in the hiring process.
-- Small companies are, in effect, families. Building a workplace that does not affront their sensibilities or support a lifestyle that cannot be reconciled with their own is the goal of many small business owners. Today, you can refuse to hire someone whose lifestyle, in your opinion, makes that individual a poor representative of the company. Many jobs have a morals clause; business owners are sensitive to many breaches of society's norms (even to habits and appearance). It would be ironic if this legislation "protected" individuals who act on same-sex attraction but not adulterers, etc.
-- HOW DO YOU COMPETE FOR A POSTION YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT? You can't. Failure to effectively advertise job openings hurts, not helps, people on the margins of society. Today, bosses prefer to fill openings with people referred by persons already working for them. This tendency will surely increase under a law that threatens to let someone use a personal choice as the basis for a hiring lawsuit. You can't sue regarding jobs you don't hear about; so, not advertising at all will be the path of least resistance. Big companies will go along if they must; small companies (where the bulk of jobs are found) will not.
- The unstated effect of laws to forbid discrimination based on sexual choice is to make it acceptable to act on same-sex attraction. What makes acting on same-sex attraction such an inflammatory topic? One test of morality is to consider the impact of "everybody" taking similar action; the impact of everyone giving into this desire is nothing less than the destruction of society.
-- Acceptance of people who act on same-sex attraction occurs daily, person-to-person, based on other attributes of these individuals. People aren't two-dimensional; many people can find a way to work with most people. However, attempts to legislate this, to make everybody "play nice", are bound to backfire.
-- As an aside, I understand the mayor of Washington State has admitted to using perks of his office to help proposition young men. The reporters who broke this case were ambivalent about pursuing it; because, they wanted to avoid judging the acceptability of his private acts while determining if he used his public position to further them. Now we hear that legislation has been proposed to prevent sexual choices from being used in hiring decisions in Washington State. Washington could soon be in the same situation as New Jersey, where a high-ranking individual placed "friends" on the payroll. Are situations like this unique to same-sex attraction? Surely not. However, these reporters were perhaps more leery of pursuing this investigation than they would have been if same-sex attraction had not been involved. They were trying to be "politically correct".
-- It has become somehow fashionable to avoid condemning certain types of immorality. To avoid taking this stand, we often refuse to label ANYTHING as immoral. Illegal, yes; immoral, we let someone else make that judgment. We expect businesses to be ethical, to cleave to the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. Are only economists allowed to talk about ethics and be taken seriously? Yes, encourage us individually to get to know and be kind to our neighbors. Yes, encourage us to hire the "best qualified" people for a job (understanding that a boss is usually happy just to avoid problems). Yes, encourage us to maintain professional relationships with our co-workers. Yes, let us hire people on a case-by-case basis as we do now, using individuals' past actions as predictors for future success in our workplace. But don't expect us to let Government bodies put us in a position of saying that immorality can never be considered, that it never makes a difference, that there is no such thing as morality, only legality.
- Such legislation seems to have had negative effects on countries that have adopted it. Redmond's support for this legislation is unfortunate, even if it comes at a time when this support will be filed away until the battle lines are joined at the next legislative session. Further, by avoiding a stance outside the U.S., Redmond may be saying that in its opinion, the U.S. does not feel as strongly about this issue as other countries do. What does that say about the U.S.?