|
xssve -> RE: Maine Anti-Discrimination Laws, Reality V Perception (9/30/2011 9:06:58 AM)
|
What? A serious topic? Are you lost? Do you know where you are?
Anyway, I'd not heard of this, I'd certainly like to hear more about it.
I've sort of taken to telling people that kinky sex is part of my religion (which it sort of is), and how dare they persecute me for practicing my religion? I hate doing this, I don't like feeling like one of those people who found congregations just to avoid taxes (most of them, I think), but the original order would be Executive order 10925:
quote:
Executive Order 10925
On March 6, 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The intent of this executive order was to affirm the government's commitment to equal opportunity for all qualified persons, and to take positive action to strengthen efforts to realize true equal opportunity for all. This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246 in 1965.
A Brief History of Affirmative Action (The rest has to do with legislation specific to California)
This was followed by the Civil Rights act of 1964, which specifies:
quote:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. Prohibits employment discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, pregnancy, (including childbirth or related condition).
University of Wisconsin: Summary of Relevant Laws, Policies and Regulations for Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity.
Again, many of these policies are specific to Wisconsin, which interestingly include: quote:
Directs UW System institutions to educate the university community about the professional risks associated with consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships where there is a potential conflict of interest or a potential abuse of power differential.
Anyway, I was trying to stay focused on that "Race Creed, Color, National Origin" thing, as that sums the thing up in principle - i.e., in many respects, BDSM is a creed, but of course much of the conflict there resembles the conflict over homosexuality, i.e., choice vs. orientation, presumably, calling a choice makes it more amenable to regulation.
I prefer to meet that argument head on, Technically, for the most part, these tend to be Fourth amendment issues - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends certain of these protections into the workplace, i.e., the Fourth Amendment says it's OK to be Black in the privacy of our own home, the CRA says that extends to the workplace.
In any case, it would be nice to get this sorted out on the Federal level, and in fact, that's pretty much how the CRA has worked, it's just that much like Mississippi, there are localities that either drag their feet or are actively trying to turn back the clock to the old WASP glory days, when the world was right and women and other minorities "knew their place", which presumably includes kinky folks, homosexuals and other "degenerates".
Technically, this smacks of an attempt to enforce a feudal caste system, and identifying it as such makes the practice sound a skosh less noble.
Most of this stuff stems from 19th century neo-Christian politics, which trend was largely driven by fear of immigration, and peaked with the eugenics movement of the 30's, developed here in America, but taken to it's logical conclusion in NAZI German, where, for the most part, the global consensus was: naaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh.
So, Godwins Law or no, there is a fairly well documented body of history on the subject of regulating behavior, most of the arguments in favor have already been made, and are themselves documented, and for the most part, refuted - it's pretty much all over but the crying from a legal perspective, but there's still plenty of people crying about it.
I dunno about Maine, but the meta logic here is fascinating and complex, but it largely boils down to simple territoriality - there's a reason a lot of these people don't want to believe in evolution, since as a science it provides sound arguments for universal human rights, not to be confused with Social Darwinism, which is largely fictional, including, yes, I'm sorry, Gorean.
|
|
|
|
