Sunday, July 27, 2014

Chick-a-Fil: Hiring the Christian Way

A reader emailed me this link and it is rather fascinating.  It describes the Chick-fil-A hiring process for franchisee operators. No wonder they have been sued multiple times.

LinkedIn: How Chick-fil-A Hires

It seems they have very discriminating tastes.
"Cathy told the magazine he is looking for married candidates (he believes they are more industrious) who are loyal, wholesome and treat their families well."
“If a man can’t manage his own life, he can’t manage a business,” Cathy said, according to Forbes. 
They make a lot of sense to me.  Thoughts?

130 comments:

Anonymous said...

The world is full of people who manage businesses just fine and do lousy jobs in managing their lives.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

you are exactly right about their "discriminating tastes." I was very surprised I didn't get a lot more hits when I searched "Chick a fil A discrimination against women." Here is one lawsuit that was mentioned in several links:


A Former Chick-Fil-A Employee Is Suing The Chain For Gender Discrimination


Would you like your daughters' future employers to decide for them it was better that they become stay at home moms?

Anonymous said...

I will only consider hiring white people to manage a store. They're more industrious.

John said...

I see many lawyer fees in your future...

Anonymous said...

As should Chik-fil-A.

John said...

Actually they said they like to hire stable married personnel with a family and values that match those of the corporation. Seems logical.

I didn't see anything about white, male, able bodied, etc.

I suppose gays may be out since their behaviors conflict with the corporate values.

Laurie said...

I believe if is a conservative Christian value that women be homemakers. You have ignore my question if you would like your daughter's employers to decide this for them, i.e. limit their opportunities for employment/advancement or give preference to male candidates.

John said...

The flip side of the question is should a company have to hire and employee people who choose to behave differently than their corporate values?

I am hoping my daughters will be smart enough to choose to work for a company that shares their personal values... I am guessing they wouldn't choose to work at Chick-fil-A...

John said...

Personally, I like Chik-fil-A's honesty... Neither their employees nor their customers can claim ignorance.

Though it looks like some of them can try, and they may even get some settlement money for their efforts.

Sean said...

"The flip side of the question is should a company have to hire and employee people who choose to behave differently than their corporate values?"

Yes. Whether you are gay or not, or married or not, or Christian or not has no bearing on your ability to make a chicken sandwich.

Chik-Fil-A is running a business, not a church.

Anonymous said...

"...hire stable married personnel with a family and values that match those of the corporation."

Gay people:
are stable (at least as much as straight people)
may be legally married
have families
own businesses and have values that allow their businesses to thrive

So, now that that nonsense is out of the way...Why should we allow public businesses to discriminate like this?

Joel

Laurie said...

Here is a related article that I found interesting regarding the rights of corporations to conduct thier business according to the religious values of its leader:

Hobby Lobby Decision Could Give License to Anti-Labor 'Biblical Economics' Practices

John said...

It is an interesting issue. If part of their marketing notes this,,.

John said...

Now that I am back at a keyboard...

Chik-fil-A is open about their strong Christian values and beliefs, the customers that eat there are apparently okay with them, and maybe even encourage them.

And I agree that those beliefs have little to do with cooking a sandwich, however they may have a lot to do with supervising and managing within that culture.

I am trying to figure out when a company needs to hire people that do not match their core values... And when it is their right to choose a more fitting candidate.

I am more of a fan of letting society be the judge. If these folks are too "unfair" to gays and women, I am assuming they will lose a lot of their customer base...

Often companies hire sales people because of their beliefs and behaviors. Strip clubs hire their staff based on beliefs and behaviors.

Thoughts?

jerrye92002 said...

Doesn't the question boil down to allowing hiring to be based on merit, and merit alone? That seems eminently sensible to me. And if you add into merit the attitudes required to fit into the corporate culture and succeed, there is no reason to say you discriminate against any particular class, while allowing you to discriminate absolutely between individuals. As for hiring gay people, as an example, I think "don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy. If it doesn't matter to their doing the job, I won't ask, and they shouldn't be telling me about it. Are they an employee first and gay second, or the other way around?

Anonymous said...

jerry, it also then follows that straight employees should not be telling about their boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, etc. etc. After all, are they an employee first and straight second, or the other way around? But we all know that's not what you mean. You mean that only gay people should have to hide their personal lives from others.

Joel

Sean said...

Letting people use their "core values" is just a stealth way to undo civil rights laws.

John said...

Should a a straight laced company be forced to hire personnel with extensive tattoo work and gauges in their ears?

Sean said...

Tattoos and jewelry are not covered by labor laws, so no.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel said, "jerry, it also then follows that straight employees should not be telling about their boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, etc. etc."

You are right. If it isn't asked about, it shouldn't be told about. On the other hand, it shouldn't be an issue if the person is one of the 98% who aren't gay, and the interviewer or co-worker is likewise. But neither should the gay person need to "hide." If they innocently let something slip which indicates their orientation, people will generally ignore it, in my experience, since it's not relevant to the job. But there is a vast difference between "letting it slip" and being "in your face" with it. Depending on degree and repetition, that sort of thing ought to get you fired. Same as being a Republican trying to work for MPR.

Anonymous said...

"Letting it slip" suggests that it is a secret and there is something to hide. There is no "letting it slip" if you are free to talk about yourself and your life. For many social conservatives "letting it slip" = "in your face". I don't care what they think. Why should that have any bearing on my value as an employee?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Maybe because those social norms have not changed around the whole country quite yet.

ACLU Protected Class Map

Anonymous said...

I would imagine there would be a similar map prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Doesn't make it right.

Joel

John said...

Black is Black
Woman is Woman

Unfortunately for gay folks a large portion of the population still sees the life style as a choice. That is why I keep looking for scientific proof that can determine sexual orientation. It would make this argument much easier.

In summary, to many people, gay folks are kind of like tattoo and low pants guy. Someone who is choosing to be different and thumbing their nose at the status quo. And worse yet they are sinning to do it.

By the way, I agree with you. It ain't right, but it will continue to change slowly but surely.

Anonymous said...

It makes no sense for homosexuality to be a choice. We know that it happens in other animal species. We have the witness of millions of homosexuals and their life experience. We also have countless billions of people for whom their heterosexuality was surely not a conscious choice.

What are we left with?

"It's icky!"? Grow up.

"It's immoral."? That's based on your religious belief...a behavior, I might add, that you have chosen and with which I disagree or, dare I say, find immoral.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"It makes no sense for homosexuality to be a choice. We know that it happens in other animal species. "

Yes, we do. Homosexuality leads to extinction, and "survival of the fittest" would quickly eliminate any genetic drivers for it from the gene pool. We also know from experiments with rats that high stress brought on by overcrowding and food limitations, causes increased homosexuality to occur, thus dropping the population. And finally, I hope that scientists NEVER prove that homosexual behavior is genetic. If so, expect those with genetically-determined criminal behaviors, which also must be inborn, to be killed at birth. And are we really going to allow genetics as a defense from charges of rape? After all, isn't that just their "orientation"?

John said...

Jerry,
Now you are talking silly again, many genetic issues don't phase out over time. They find ways to skip generations, or other ways to survive.

Then you are comparing a willing act by 2 mature adults to crimes where an unwilling person is victimized.

I am puzzled why you are so judgmental of gays and lesbians? Your views will slowly fade with the coming generations.

Anonymous said...

"Homosexuality leads to extinction..."

?????

One would think that by now nature would have found a way to eliminate it if it offered no evolutionary advantage. Perhaps we should sterilize straight people. After all, they're the ones producing the homosexual people.

The genetic or hereditary question is pointless, though, as we give constitutional protection to people's behavioral choices, too. e.g. Religion, firearms, speech

The problem I see is most people look at homosexuality through the wrong lens, Religion. If they're truly interested in the truth about homosexuality, they would look at it through a scientific lens. There is a reason it exists in a great number of species. Religion just clouds the search for truth.

Joel

John said...

I think you are blaming to much of this social value on religion.

I am of questionable religious standing and I find the idea of 2 men physically passionately together as rather icky.

That does not mean I have any interest in blocking the behavior, but I am sure not going to promote or encourage it.

Maybe for comparison, envision an 18 year old being sexually active with a 90 yr old...

Anonymous said...

Why would I envision it? Why would a straight person envision two men or two women having sex? It's really odd how much some people think about the sex lives of others.

I guess if you envision yourself with someone of the same sex and find it repulsive, you've answered the question of what your sexual orientation is. And to me, the idea of being with a woman is physically repulsive. Always has been.

I can assure you that the love and physical passion I feel for my boyfriend is not icky. It's quite amazing.

Joel

Anonymous said...

Question for you, John:

Do you "promote and encourage" heterosexual behavior even though you know there are people who will find the idea repulsive?

Personally, I find it repulsive for myself, but I would encourage it for people who desire it. I wonder why you can't do the same.

Joel

John said...

Technically... I choose to not promote or encourage homosexual behavior. I could if I chose to.

Do you choose to encourage sexual relations between 18 and 90 year olds? Raationale?

Or between family members?

John said...

To clarify my insensitive position.

I really don't encourage or promote sexuality of any kind. It simply is not any of my business.

Of course there are a few exceptions:
- I am male and a husband (nuff said)
- I am a Father (wait til marriage or close to it if possible)
- I am a Conservative (wait til marriage or close to it if possible, and if you just can't wait... be responsible and don't get a disease or get the woman pregnant...)

If I did have a friend or family member who was gay or lesbian, I would encourage them to follow their heart.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel said, ""Homosexuality leads to extinction..." ????? One would think that by now nature would have found a way to eliminate it if it offered no evolutionary advantage."

And you have just answered your own question. Nature HAS eliminated homosexuality from the gene pool, by the simplest and most immediate means of not transmitting such a gene to the next generation. Therefore, the only possible explanation for homosexual orientation is "environment," or a "choice," however much that may have been unconsciously foisted on us. One suspects, for example, that growing up in a loving, two-parent family might lead people to prefer that arrangement for themselves. And that many who did not might still believe that to be the ideal. Certain types of home environments can lead to a homosexual orientation, but then there is ANOTHER choice to be made, later in life, about behavior. Again, I simply will not believe that humans have instinctual, inborn behaviors that they must follow; I believe all behavior is a choice, no matter how difficult. Do I want to interfere in that choice? Not at all. But don't ask me to encourage or even accept it as genetically predetermined.

jerrye92002 said...

John said, "Jerry,
Now you are talking silly again, many genetic issues don't phase out over time. They find ways to skip generations, or other ways to survive.

Then you are comparing a willing act by 2 mature adults to crimes where an unwilling person is victimized.

I am puzzled why you are so judgmental of gays and lesbians? Your views will slowly fade with the coming generations."

1) Who is being silly? Homosexuals by definition create no future generations at all, so the idea a homosexual gene could "skip a generation" is utter nonsense.

2) I am comparing rape and homosexual sex as two sexual behaviors. If one behavior is genetically "at fault," then must not the other be, also? Why criminalize one and not the other?

3) That's what I am afraid of-- extinction of the human race, and "slouching towards Gomorrah." I believe there is a moral component to this, too, and that concerns me. Would we really want a society where all manner of "alternative lifestyles" were accepted as normal?

Anonymous said...

Sorry to break it to you, jerry, but you're wrong.

You have completely closed your mind and heart to the idea that human love and relationships can exceed the bounds of your limited imagination. I choose not to put such limits on God's creation.

You refuse to listen to people who know a whole lot better than you what choices they have or have not made in their lives. When did you choose to be so closed-minded? Children are naturally open-minded, so you must have made a conscious decision at some point to think you know what's best for everyone else.

Also...

1) You didn't tell us you were the world authority on human genetics.

2) Rape is not a sexual behavior. Why criminalize one and not the other? One is consensual, the other is not. It's shocking that you need that explained to you.

3)"slouching towards Gomorrah" - You don't know a whole lot if you think that the reason Gomorrah was destroyed was because of homosexual love. And I still fail to understand why it's any of your business how other people fall in love or who they share their life with.

Joel

Anonymous said...

John,

You asked, "Do you choose to encourage sexual relations between 18 and 90 year olds? Raationale? Or between family members?"

It's none of my business. They are free to make their own decisions. I neither encourage nor discourage it.

That said, I don't think close relatives should be producing offspring, because of the burden that genetic defects could place on the child, the family, and society.

Neither of these examples are questions of sexual orientation, however. People may not be able to choose which sex/gender they're attracted to, but they certainly can make decisions about which people they have relations or relationships with.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Though I disagree with most of what Jerry is saying, I do find your comment ironic and humorous.

"Neither of these examples are questions of sexual orientation, however. People may not be able to choose which sex/gender they're attracted to, but they certainly can make decisions about which people they have relations or relationships with."

How do you know genetics don't attract certain huge age disparity or familial sexual attractions?

And to address this: "And I still fail to understand why it's any of your business how other people fall in love or who they share their life with." Gays and Lesbians actually made it our business when they demanded public acceptance of their private relationships. That opened the topic to a discussion of social norms.

Sean said...

You could argue, of course, that public recognition of private heterosexual relationships are what made it their business -- given the Equal Protection Clause and all that.

John said...

Nah... It didn't become a national dialogue until they raised the issue... It was pretty quiet for the first ~200 years of the USA's history...

Looks like the first "Pride Parade" was in 1970.

John said...

Equal Protection Clause

Anonymous said...

John-

"How do you know genetics don't attract certain huge age disparity or familial sexual attractions?"

I guess I don't. Same as jerry can't know if genetics plays a role in a sex/gender-focused orientation. However, I'm not making a categorical judgment about their relationships. Whether it's genetic or not is irrelevant.

Joel

Anonymous said...

John,

Regarding the emergence of the gay rights movement: the riots at the Stonewall Inn were in 1969. People had finally had enough. Just how long do you think is enough time before downtrodden people should demand their Constitutional rights?

Societal consciousness changes all the time.

Joel

Sean said...

Things are so much easier when those who are disempowered keep their mouths shut, isn't it?

John said...

As discussed previously, to be consistent, I hope you are willing to champion the cause of future disempowered citizens who want to use the "Equal Protection Cause" to challenge our social values and norms. Even norms that you think are important.

Maybe our country will become the next Holland Red Light district. How did Jerry call it. "slouching towards Gomorrah"

I don't have the answer, but it has been a good discussion.

Anonymous said...

John,

I do not need to champion anything to be consistent. They are free to lobby the government to recognize their relationships. I will live my life. They can live theirs. I don't care.

Respectfully,
Joel

Sean said...

I'll be happy to support valid Equal Protection claims. But, I (and our federal courts) do not believe that the Equal Protection case in favor of polygamy or incest is equivalent to or consistent with that of the Equal Protection case in favor of same-sex marriage.

John said...

Give it a few more decades and some humorous sitcoms, maybe their life style will become social acceptable also.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel said, "I guess I don't. Same as jerry can't know if genetics plays a role in a sex/gender-focused orientation. "

I'll admit, all I know about genetics was learned in Biology 101, but in Logic 101 I learned that genes do not get passed to offspring if there are no offspring.

Look, I understand you are trying to defend the choices you have made, and I would be one of the last to demand that you change them. But I closed my mind when gay activists started to demand that I not only approve of their choices but accept the nonsense that it wasn't a choice, that it was genetic. You're asking me to forsake my moral compass AND logic? Sorry. Really.

jerrye92002 said...

We seem to have strayed from the original discussion. I believe a corporation should be free to hire and fire based on any INDIVIDUAL characteristic that it reasonably believes affects job performance, and should NOT use group or class distinctions. That is, jobs requiring muscular development can go to a woman, because there are a few out there that can out-muscle a fair percentage of men. Old men with poor grooming make poor receptionists; that sort of thing. And I would think most people would prefer to work for a firm that a) thought they could do the job and b) thought they would "fit in" with the organization. All of the nastiness comes about when government wants to divide people into classes with "rights" and "obligations," rather than as individuals with talents and abilities. Who would want to force their way into a place with government at your back?

Anonymous said...

"Look, I understand you are trying to defend the choices you have made..."

There you go again. You're not using your logic very well here. All of the evidence points to the vast majority of humans not having a choice of which sex/gender they are attracted to. You have chosen to believe that everyone is lying. I guess I'm not that cynical.

"You're asking me to forsake my moral compass..."

Nope. You are free to make your own choices regarding your religion and morals. You do not, however, get to force other people to live by them.

As for logic, I have one parent who is attracted to women and another parent who is attracted to men. Seems like those traits got passed on to us four children just fine.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"I believe a corporation should be free to hire and fire based on any INDIVIDUAL characteristic that it reasonably believes affects job performance..."

Thank you for supporting my point. How does an individual's sexual orientation (whether it's a choice or not) affect his/her job performance?

Short answer: It does not.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel said, "As for logic, I have one parent who is attracted to women and another parent who is attracted to men. Seems like those traits got passed on to us four children just fine."

And you could not possibly have two parents attracted to the same sex. You simply would not exist. THAT is logic. A genetic marker for homosexuality cannot exist because it could never be transmitted to the next generation--there wouldn't BE a next generation.

And as for the logic of "the vast majority having no choice," you are suggesting one possible explanation-- that heterosexuality is genetic. And that could be true, because such a gene would pass to the offspring. The more likely explanation is that we ALL have a choice of behaviors, and the vast majority choose the one that offers the possibility of progeny.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel said, "Nope. You are free to make your own choices regarding your religion and morals. You do not, however, get to force other people to live by them."

Exactly right. You are free to make your own choices. I would not force you to do otherwise in matters that affect only you (some morals, like against murder, should and are codified in law). You do not, however, have the right to ask (or force) me to approve of your choices, in contradiction of my own moral compass.

John said...

Jerry,
I am still puzzled by your insistence that all genetic transfer is through dominant genes. There are many physical variations that skip generations.

And many variations that occur due to the parents makeup, age, nutrition, etc.

I mean how can normal parents have a genius for a child in your genetic fantasy land

John said...

Some light reading:
Genetic Issues Inherited
PBS Genetics

jerrye92002 said...

OK, I've read clear through your exhausting and convoluted cites, and nowhere do I see any contradiction of the fundamental logic which says that a "gay gene," dominant or otherwise, cannot be passed to the next generation if there isn't a next generation.

That said, some of the research comes close, suggesting that there is some sort of "predisposition" gene carried in the maternal line, but that is not definitive. It could also be, as a hypothesis, a tendency of the females to not produce sufficient testosterone for full maleness. But that doesn't even begin to explain lesbians.

Some of the researchers expressed concerns about a true genetic determinant of behavior-- any behavior-- and that worries me, too. If we can find it, we can eliminate it, and I would like to think that eugenics is wrong, especially when it involves infanticide. OTOH, if behavior is chosen, then we can deal with it fairly, in whatever way an evolving society sees fit.

John said...

It sounds like no real serious research occurred until the 1990's because many people believed as you do. And since genetics and brain research is rather new, it will be interesting to see where this goes.

Remember my tongue in cheek view of lesbians. They may just be women that got tired of men not listening, checking out other women and thinking they were always right, so they decided to seek female companionship and meaningful conversations.

jerrye92002 said...

"Remember my tongue in cheek view of lesbians."

If you were serious about that, you would be admitting that lesbian orientation would be a choice.

My tongue in cheek view is that of COURSE lesbians are attracted to women. Almost half of the human race is.

John said...

I think I am admitting that I do not know either way yet, however I could see it being a choice for some women. For the others, we will see where the research leads.

Sean said...

Why does it matter? We prohibit discrimination based on religion, and that is a choice.

John said...

Good point. I wonder how Chik-fil-A fairs in their cases.
Damages are probably pretty hard to prove if they don't hire them.

Usuaully wrongful termination should be more expensive.

Anonymous said...

Jerry, I see that you chose not to answer the question of logic, but rather built a straw man to defeat.

My mother is attracted to men. I am attracted to men. Notice that the trait is specific; i.e. attraction to a particular sex.

In your argument, the trait is more general, attraction to someone of the same sex, which introduces more variables.

You are arguing something different that what I posited. Please try to address my point next time.

Joek

Anonymous said...

Heh.

Joel, of course. Darn fingers.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel said, "Jerry, I see that you chose not to answer the question of logic, but rather built a straw man to defeat."

I'm sorry, but you are simply going to have to explain that one to me. I believe I have consistently insisted, with flawless logic, that genetic traits cannot be transmitted to offspring if there are no offspring, and homosexual unions cannot produce offspring.

Anonymous said...

And I argued that attraction to men (or women) could be considered a trait that could be passed on, regardless of the sex of the offspring. In which case, every child inherits the trait to be attracted to one of the sexes (or perhaps both, in some cases).

If you don't like your own logic being used against you, perhaps you should be sure that your logic is sound.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Perhaps you can explain to me how your logic supersedes the biological impossibility of a gay couple passing on ANYTHING to their offspring?

Anonymous said...

It's really quite simple. A vast majority of people have an attraction to one sex or the other (sometimes both). They inherit it from their parents.

It supersedes because it actually happens.

Why do you assume it's "same-sex attraction" that would need to be hereditary for anyone to claim that it's genetic when simple attraction is much more likely.

You are assuming that in order for it to be genetic, it would have to be a "same-sex attraction" gene, but the gene would need to be triggered to know which sex to be attracted to depending on the sex of the offspring.

All I am assuming is that sexual attraction to a particular sex, which is rather obvious in opposite-sex couplings, is passed on from one parent to the offspring.

In the absence of certainty, the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

I will concede that it is possible that opposite-sex attraction is an inherited characteristic. Certainly Nature could have programmed in such an attraction as opposite-sex attraction and reproduction is essential to the survival of the species. And it stands to reason that such a "gene," if it exists, would be passed from parent to offspring. But to argue that a homosexual gene could be passed from parent to offspring is ridiculous, because homosexuals do not create offspring. Any "logic" that concludes otherwise is simply faulty.

Anonymous said...

You're either not understanding me or you're being obtuse.

I'm not talking about a heterosexual or homosexual gene. I'm talking about a male-oriented or female-oriented gene.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Just curious, why is it so important to you to try and win this argument with Jerry?

Time and science will solve this mystery. Probably sooner than later.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, I'm sorry I did not understand you. I thought you were arguing for a genetic driver for homosexual BEHAVIOR, and I rankle at any notion that human behavior is inborn. We're better than that as a species. Besides, it is an evolutionary dead end, since it could not be passed to offspring, there being none.

You could also be right about "attraction" or orientation being inherited. I have already conceded that there may be an opposite-sex attraction gene that Nature may have wired us with to perpetuate our species. One might also presume that the absence of this gene could be "hidden" for generations, and passed along to some eventual offspring. We would never know until that "orientation" was expressed in BEHAVIOR.

So, whether orientation is nature or nurture (more likely the latter), thank you for proving my point, that human sexual behavior is a CHOICE.

jerrye92002 said...

John, there's no science involved here, just simple logic. If there is a homosexual gene that is determinant of sexual behavior, then it ends in the first generation in which it appears because there are no offspring to transmit it to. And a gene for homosexual orientation could not be passed, either, unless each successive generation ignored that genetic predisposition and CHOSE to procreate in heterosexual fashion.

And here's the unavoidable truth. We are born male or female, with "mating parts" (in both senses of the phrase) so we can "insert tab A into slot B." What we CHOOSE to do with that specialized equipment is exactly that, a choice. It warrants no more consideration from others than do our other choices in life. If we choose to flaunt, say, our binge drinking, we might expect an employer to look upon us differently, and they /should/. If we manage to not let it affect our job, nothing will or should be said.

John said...

So to follow Joel's thought.

You made a conscience decision to be attracted to women?

It was not somehow ingrained in your nature by genetics and biology? You could have happily chosen to be attracted to men?

It was just your environment and parents who made you get that tingly feeling when an attractive woman walked by?

I must say that I believe 100% that nature determined my sexual preference. Not some environmental factor.

Also, you keep insisting that it takes gay couples to make a gay baby when we know this is not true. Many gay people are born to straight parents... Remember those recessive genes and the variation of when different levels of hormones are applied at different times.

Anonymous said...

John-

I was about to give up on Jerry anyway, as he's not willing to consider ANYTHING beyond his established viewpoint or ingrained religious belief, something which I've had to do my whole life because of this beautiful gift of sexuality I've been given by God.

If one follows his logic further, one would conclude that a person has no sexual orientation at all unless they are engaged in sexual behavior. Since we know that's not the case, his argument is dead in the water.

His argument is patently illogical. For example, we know that handedness is an inherited trait. We also know that many people were trained to use their right hand even though they were born with the left-handed trait. Jerry's argument requires us to believe that a left-handed person who has been trained to use their right hand is not, in fact, left-handed. Ridiculous! In other words, absent coercion, a left-handed person will naturally use their left hand.

Considering the amount of societal coercion there is for people to participate in heterosexual unions, one has to wonder what the true incidence of non-heterosexual orientation there actually is in the human population. The only numbers we have are of those homosexuals that self-report.

You might ask, "How can you make the assumption that homosexuality is pre-determined?" It's quite simple. I have first hand experience. Better yet, there are millions of people who've had the same experience I've had, gay and straight alike. The sheer weight of the evidence crushes Jerry's argument.

Furthermore, as we've established previously, whether it is simply behavior or a genetic trait is irrelevant, as we already give Constitutional protection to chosen behaviors.

Jerry's assertion that there is no science involved here betrays his ignorance of Science. Science is the search for the truth of the physical world. Only when we stop trying to understand will Science no longer be involved.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Wow. Just wow.

"I was about to give up on Jerry anyway, as he's not willing to consider ANYTHING beyond his established viewpoint or ingrained religious belief,"

Feel free to give up on me whenever you wish, but I have not, to my knowledge, yet advanced a religious argument. I have called upon simple logic and what limited knowledge of human biology and genetics is required to sustain that logic.

"If one follows his logic further, one would conclude that a person has no sexual orientation at all unless they are engaged in sexual behavior. Since we know that's not the case, his argument is dead in the water."

I have been very careful, I think, to distinguish between the two. My premise has always been that sexual behavior is a CHOICE, and that very little human behavior is inborn and instinctual and even THAT, for example a heterosexual orientation, still allows for a choice of behavior. A heterosexual OR homosexual person can remain celibate, or they can choose to "swing both ways," regardless of their orientation. You simply cannot tell me that somebody can be married, father a couple of children, and then announce that he is "gay," unless he has made some behavioral choices, none of which were programmed into his genetic code. I don't think anybody even CARES (or knows) about orientation that does NOT result in a corresponding behavior.

"Jerry's assertion that there is no science involved here betrays his ignorance of Science." Sorry, but you have no knowledge of whom you speak.

"Also, you keep insisting that it takes gay couples to make a gay baby when we know this is not true."

Not at all. I have been insisting, quite beyond any doubt, that gay couples can NOT make a gay baby, or any babies at all. When a hetero couple makes a baby, it is true they could pass on a (recessive, perhaps) gene for "gay orientation," but that gene will not pass to the FOLLOWING generation unless this person chooses sexual behavior that is AGAINST their supposedly-inborn orientation and produces offspring. In other words, Nature has a natural Darwinian barrier to a genetic basis for homosexuality. Now the hormone theory is a good one, based in "environment," I point out, and I might buy that one-- it could even be genetically passed through the maternal line-- but it doesn't explain lesbians, I think. And it would be for orientation, not behavior.

"...whether it is simply behavior or a genetic trait is irrelevant, as we already give Constitutional protection to chosen behaviors."

Well, yes, and I will agree it doesn't matter, up until the point in which people want to use genetics to excuse their (IMHO) chosen behavior. But I don't think the Constitution is the best place to see this. We have all manner of laws either penalizing or rewarding various behaviors, and we also have "societal norms" that do much the same. Try dating an very-underage girl in Louisiana and see if you come back from the next possum hunt.

In short, the right to choose your own behavior, for whatever reason you choose it, does not give you the right to demand the rest of us agree with your choice, in employment or anything else.

Anonymous said...

You get one more chance to use your common sense, and then I'm done.

My father is attracted to women.
My older brother is attracted to women.
My younger brother is attracted to women.
Hereditary or not?

My mother is attracted to men.
My sister is attracted to men.
I am attracted to men.
Hereditary or not?

It has nothing at all to do with a "gay" gene that couldn't be passed on by me and my boyfriend.

"You simply cannot tell me that somebody can be married, father a couple of children, and then announce that he is "gay," unless he has made some behavioral choices, none of which were programmed into his genetic code."

Considering the amount of coercion that has happened in our society until very recently, it's entirely plausible for a man who is homosexual to marry a woman to avoid the stigma, second-class citizenship, and hatred foisted upon homosexuals. One can go against their nature quite readily, as is evidenced by left-handed people learned to do things right-handed.

"Well, yes, and I will agree it doesn't matter, up until the point in which people want to use genetics to excuse their (IMHO) chosen behavior."

There is nothing to excuse. Homosexual behavior is perfectly natural for a person who IS homosexual. That you don't believe that homosexuals ARE is your own issue. I've shown you how simple it is for a genetic trait to be inherited (i.e. me inheriting attraction to men from my mother) and you still cling to your notion of a "gay" gene.

I've done my best to get you to consider something other than your belief, but as a wise person once said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Thanks for the one more chance to understand what in my opinion is your absolutely abysmal logic.

You were born male. Your male siblings exhibit an attraction to women, but you do not. Your female sibling exhibits an attraction to men; you should not but do. I refuse to believe that homosexual or heterosexual or any other human behavior is genetic, and logic dictates that homosexual behavior in particular cannot be. I don't believe orientation is genetic, either, but rather the result of some environmental factor, and the fact that some people apparently "change" their orientation by choosing a different behavior tells me that it is indeed CHOSEN, not genetically pre-ordered. The fact that homosexuals choose homosexual behavior is not "natural" other than it simply indicates they have made a choice consistent with their orientation, however that came about.

And this conversation started out by asking what attributes an employer could consider in hiring. I would say that genetic characteristics like race and gender should not generally be a consideration. That is, we might find more men than women qualified for a job requiring upper body strength, but that doesn't mean a particular woman might not qualify. Behaviors, on the other hand, DO matter. Someone consistently late, or disruptive of the office environment, might be fired, regardless of race or gender, and certainly without regard to sexual orientation. Do you really think otherwise?

John said...

Jerry,
You missed addressing my questions...

You made a conscience decision to be attracted to women?

It was not somehow ingrained in your nature by genetics and biology? You could have happily chosen to be attracted to men?

jerrye92002 said...

Let me answer the question this way. Someone born with male genitalia and male hormones, and raised with the societal expectations for males, might be presumed to exhibit the heterosexual inclinations and, eventually, behaviors required of males to perpetuate the species. They are completely capable of functioning biologically in this fashion. So, if they do not, it is because they have made a choice not to do so, and that choice is driven by some psychological difference-- not genetic and not biological. Is the "normal" behavior a "choice"? Only in that one CAN choose otherwise, or that one has tried something else and chosen to "come back." Most do not make the choice at all, but rather follow the role Nature has assigned them. It is the "default choice."

John said...

So if societal values were otherwise...

You could have happily chosen to be attracted to men?

Anonymous said...

John-

It's clear that jerry is happy with his double standard. Heterosexuality is genetic, homosexuality is not. And as someone who claims to understand logic, he doesn't seem to understand the concept of Occam's Razor.

So be it. He can live in his ignorance.

John, I'm sorry to have wasted so much space on your blog trying to educate a closed off, bigoted mind. I realize now how futile an effort it is.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Be nice... No name calling allowed... It is okay for people to agree to disagree on G2A without being labelled.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, just because I refuse to agree to your twisted logic does not say anything about my ignorance or otherwise. I don't have a double standard. I recognize the duality of human sexuality. I claim that men and women are different and have different roles, and that reproduction requires both.

Just because a "gene" for heterosexuality can be passed to offspring does NOT mean that a homosexuality gene can be passed to offspring, because there ARE None. What is the escape from that simple logic? It's not a matter of opinion or the science of genetics, it's simple biological fact! Again, I will distinguish between orientation and behavior, because I simply do not want anyone saying that humans are genetically "programmed" for any type of behavior. If so, we would find ourselves excusing all sorts of aberrant and criminal behavior because people could claim to be "born that way." Let us agree on that point.

Likewise, I have consistently, I believe, stated that there may be some genetic component to the "environment" which produces a gay orientation in offspring of parents. But it is possible for gay-oriented people to choose to behave otherwise. They may not, just as many hetero people do not make an active choice to either follow or act against their orientation.

So, how does Occam's razor even begin to apply here. Seems to me that the simplest explanation is that gay people choose to behave as they do, just like everybody else. We don't need any of the "clutter" of unproven scientific causes.

jerrye92002 said...

John, I keep trying to answer your questions, but you must admit it is highly hypothetical. Society has established heterosexual reproduction as the norm because Nature has created us for sexual reproduction and if it does not take place, "society" goes extinct. Homosexuality is counter-survival at the most basic level.

If what you are suggesting is that both orientation and behavior are entirely driven by societal norms, I would disagree. If so, we wouldn't have gay people, would we?



Anonymous said...

jerry-

Why do you insist on referring to a homosexuality gene when the simpler explanation is that a mother would pass on a gene for attraction to men (something you accept) to a male child? THAT is Occam's Razor. Your explanation of genetic homosexuality is more complex. Absent certainty, my explanation is more likely to be correct.

Your insistence that homosexuality is simply a behavior is ridiculous.

And if, as you say, "...Nature has created us for sexual reproduction and if it does not take place, "society" goes extinct. Homosexuality is counter-survival at the most basic level.", why are there homosexual populations observed in a great variety of species on this planet? Again, your logic falls apart, or are these animals also 'choosing' homosexual behavior?

You know, it's fine. You will believe and think what you will, but please stop trying to pass off your belief and 'gut feeling' as logic.

Joel

John said...

Wiki Occam's Razor

Jerry,
It is 100% hypothetical. No logic required.

Would you marry and be intimate with a man to just fit into that society? Or would you go with what feels natural to you and fight for societal acceptance? Rationale?

Also technically us Christians believe God created us... So this is incorrect, "Nature has created us for sexual reproduction." And since many many many variances /imperfections exist in humans today. It would be hard for me to say that God was fully in control or that God created us for reproduction only. Maybe God wanted variation and problems so that we would learn tolerance and acceptance... Remember: God works in mysterious ways...

John said...

Joel,
Actually Jerry's explanation is very simplistic. It has only two assumptions...

It takes a gay parent to make a gay child.

Since two practicing gay parents can not make a child.

Being Gay should have been taken out of the human physiology almost immediately.

Of course the problem is that we know many human conditions continue through the generations, while skipping generations. So the first assumption is proven wrong immediately.

The nice thing as I said. We can agree to disagree if we choose to. Otherwise we will find out how many comments Blogger supports.

Anonymous said...

John-

We have no evidence that there is a same-sex attraction gene. If there is such a gene, then jerry's logic works. Lacking certainty, it's simpler to assume there is no such gene.

But there doesn't need to be a same-sex attraction gene for same-sex attraction to be genetic.

It is quite logical that an attraction to a particular sex IS hereditary, and jerry has said as much. Since we can safely assume that attraction to one of the sexes is passed on to the offspring, for jerry's logic to work (since his logic says there is no genetic same-sex attraction), one would have to make the additional assumption that attraction to males can only be passed on to female offspring and attraction to females to male offspring.

In other words, if attraction to males is passed on to a male child, then genetic same-sex attraction does exist. To say it doesn't exist, as jerry does, requires one to assume attraction to males can only be passed on to female offspring. Such an assumption makes jerry's answer less likely to be correct.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"Your insistence that homosexuality is simply a behavior is ridiculous."

OK, but if a gay orientation does not result in the corresponding behavior, what difference does it make? If a gay man marries and fathers children, is he still gay? Why? And if human behavior is genetically predetermined, then the eugenicists are right and all criminals (and maybe homosexuals) will be killed at birth. I don't want to contemplate that very real possibility.

"why are there homosexual populations observed in a great variety of species on this planet? Again, your logic falls apart, or are these animals also 'choosing' homosexual behavior?"

There are no species in which homosexuality is the norm because they became extinct. These animals may not be "choosing" in the same sense as humans, but we know the behavior can be "forced" on members of a species in overpopulation circumstances. It isn't genetic. In fact, I have continually argued, obviously unsuccessfully, AGAINST any possible genetic determinant of human sexual /behavior/.

"Would you marry and be intimate with a man to just fit into that society?" Gee, I don't know. What if I didn't feel that strongly about it, or thought that I really would NOT be accepted or even killed for my choice to perpetuate the species? How about I maintain my orientation quietly, and never engage in any public behavior that might make it known? Would I really need to shout so loudly and demand acceptance of something that perhaps I had been taught to think of as "unnatural"?

"Also technically us Christians believe God created us... So this is incorrect, "Nature has created us for sexual reproduction." Let's leave God out of this. Sexual reproduction was an evolutionary advantage in the distant past, and our species survives only by reproduction. What we do with that is God's concern, and if we care what God thinks maybe we try for guidance thereby, but that would be a choice, now, wouldn't it?

"In other words, if attraction to males is passed on to a male child, then genetic same-sex attraction does exist. To say it doesn't exist, as jerry does, requires one to assume attraction to males can only be passed on to female offspring."

Here's where my logic simply cannot abide your argument. Since ALL of our inborn sexual characteristics-- our complete anatomy-- is set by genetics, one would assume that everything that makes a "girl" comes with the package, and everything that makes a "boy" comes likewise. To suggest that just one thing, a "sexual attraction" marker, does not follow that pattern, and passes from a male parent to female offspring, seems highly unlikely.

And I continue to wonder why we are debating at such length for a genetic basis for homosexuality? Is it that some people need to believe that gayness is some sort of inborn difference, like race or gender, that would make it a "civil rights" issue? If we believe it is simply a different lifestyle choice, then much of the polarization goes away, doesn't it?

John said...

My view is that it has little to do with genetics and a lot to do with hormones. In particular those that are introduced in the womb, and those created in the body during the early years of the brain's development.

Michael Gurian writes a lot about this rapidly developing body of knowledge. (ie The Wonder of Boys, The Wonder of Girls, etc)

John said...

Good questions. I would love to hear your answers to them.

"Gee, I don't know. What if I didn't feel that strongly about it, or thought that I really would NOT be accepted or even killed for my choice to perpetuate the species? How about I maintain my orientation quietly, and never engage in any public behavior that might make it known? Would I really need to shout so loudly and demand acceptance of something that perhaps I had been taught to think of as "unnatural"?"

Would you risk ridicule, abuse, and for go financial benefits to avoid taking a male partner to your bed, and so that you could live and be intimate with your wife?

Should you have to in a "free" society?

jerrye92002 said...

"My view is that it has little to do with genetics and a lot to do with hormones." I have long been willing to entertain that theory, and it certainly explains why animals under population stress produce more gay-behaving offspring (we have no idea what their "orientation" is). But in humans, such conditions simply cannot be determinative of behavior, because of the countless counter-examples we have. Male prisoners, for example, engage in gay behavior at a much higher rate than the general population. Are gays disproportionately criminal, or are behavioral choices being made counter to their previous heterosexual orientation?

jerrye92002 said...

"Would you risk ridicule, abuse, and for go financial benefits to avoid taking a male partner to your bed, and so that you could live and be intimate with your wife? Should you have to in a "free" society?"

Absolutely, you should have to. A free society is one in which your opinion and behavior gets exactly the respect and accommodation that the rest of the society is free to give or withhold at will. You make your choices, and you live with the consequences of those choices. You can complain it's not fair, but that, too, is going to get you exactly that which the overall society decides is fair and no more.

John said...

I believe prison "gay behavior" is actually rape. And remember that rape is about power, not sex.

As for standing up for one's beliefs. Then it is good that gays and lesbians are starting to win their revolt against the status quo citizens who would deny them equality. Long live the freedom fighters...

I love America !!!

Anonymous said...

John-

It's quite shocking how willing jerry is to deny people basic human rights because a majority thinks a trait is abnormal.

I sure hope jerry doesn't have any abnormal traits. Who will speak for him when those who want to take his rights away finally figure out how abnormal he really is?

Which brings us back to Chik-fil-A. Right-handed people are just better workers (or so someone may think). Why would you want someone with such an abnormal trait running a store?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
I think you want it both ways.

You want people to respect and honor your differences and let you live your life as you wish,

Yet you want Chik-fil-A and Jerry to give in and conform to your sense of what is correct and fair.

Meaning that you are unwilling to let them live their lives the way they choose to.

And both Jerry and yourself are happy when the Laws or the Rulings fall your way.(ie more leaning towards facism than libertarian)

John said...

By the way, I don't see a legally recognized marriage or working at Chik-fil-A as a "basic human right". I reserve that for the important things like freedom, food and safety.

Anonymous said...

John-

The SCOTUS disagrees with you regarding Marriage as a right (14 times, to my understanding).

I don't want it both ways. I want it the way the Constitution and the laws of the US lay out. You're right, working for Chik-fil-A is not a "basic human right", so they should be free to discriminate in hiring against anyone they wish; African Americans, Jews, left-handed people, single people, homosexuals, people with freckles, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I guess the Constitution and Statutes mean nothing anymore.

Mr. Cathy benefits from the protection of the US Government, infrastructure, etc. Why should he get to side-step US law? Because he's a business owner?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Now we are getting somewhere. All of this talk about a genetic basis for homosexual orientation or even behavior has seemingly been to underpin the notion that gays have a "civil rights" case just like the case for race and gender differences that are indelibly genetic. If being gay is more of a choice or psychological condition (as recognized by the APA until recently), then the civil rights case is considerably weakened.

Just to be clear. There are "inalienable rights" that come from God, according to the Declaration of Independence, and "among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So I guess if you're happy being gay, you're covered. But then there are CIVIL rights, as established in the Constitution, including freedoms of association, religion, press, assembly, trial by jury and, more recently, some previously unknown and unwritten "right of privacy" hidden in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution which justifies murder of the preborn. Nowhere is there a right to a job or to a marriage, or even to be treated as equal in any context except "before the law." And there, you are no more entitled, by law, to a marriage license than you are a fishing license; you must meet the qualifications set by the State. Even then, the State should not compel any private citizen in matters of freedom of association or freedom of conscience. They do, but shouldn't.

In other words, one can freely choose to be gay. One can even choose a religious "marriage ceremony," since many churches will perform one. But to suggest that, despite some outrageous behavior that disrupts the workplace, someone must be employed simply because of their "protected class," makes no sense. Put a better way, if being gay doesn't affect your job performance, including your ability to work well with others, who cares? I don't, and haven't.

Anonymous said...

"If being gay is more of a choice or psychological condition (as recognized by the APA until recently), then the civil rights case is considerably weakened."

Nonsense. Civil rights are not based on whether or not something is genetic.

"And there, you are no more entitled, by law, to a marriage license than you are a fishing license; you must meet the qualifications set by the State."

...which intelligent and reasonable people are beginning to understand should not exclude people because of the sex/gender of their partner.

Or do you not believe that our Government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed"?

"Put a better way, if being gay doesn't affect your job performance, including your ability to work well with others, who cares?"

Except when your employer thinks that a simple mention of going to a movie with your same-sex partner somehow relates to your ability to do a job. That is something you have NEVER had to worry about; that you could be fired for mentioning your wife or children in conversation in the workplace.

It's okay. You don't get it and you never will, because you're part of the privileged class. I guess you'll just have to hope that you always are.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
The question is can you be happy with 60% the population supporting your life style and 40% seeing it as sinful?

Or do they all need to believe and act as you want them to?

I am sorry to say but having a gay person talking about their boy friend at work when most of the employees are from the religious right would be a disruption that would impact the work place.

Pick any significant sin you want and imagine you are forced to work with the person that discusses their conducting it regularly. You really don't think that would bother you.

Sean said...

Hiring an African-American into an all-white workplace could be "disruptive" too.

At some point, while it does infringe on one's liberties to an extent, we've decided that there's certain types of discrimination in employment or housing or similar issues that we're just not going to allow. That's not new or unique or radical.

Telling me I can't yell fire in a crowded theater cramps my freedom of speech, but we've collectively decided that's for the betterment of society.

It's telling, of course, that the people who say these sorts of laws aren't needed are typically those who won't have to be subjected to the discrimination that would result or downplay the long historical record of discrimination that has occurred.

Anonymous said...

John-

I don't care what people believe. Their religious belief applies to them and only them. There is no right for them to force another person to abide by their religious belief.

Chik-fil-A is not a religious organization.

To rephrase your statement: "I am sorry to say but having a straight person talking about their boy friend at work when most of the employees are gay would be a disruption that would impact the work place." Ridiculous.

Love is not sin.

Peace,
Joel

John said...

Sean,
That is why I am hoping that they will find a way to test for "gay" sooner than later. Being Black or a Woman makes this Equality issue a much easier topic.

Joel,
I haven't found anyone that thinks love is a sin. However there are a lot of people out there that still think physical love between 2 people of the same sex is a choice and a sin.

No different than prostitution. Two adults doing something that is socially unacceptable. What if that hypothetical co-worker discussed his street walking at work? Wouldn't bother you at all?

Or are you sensitive to animal rights? How would you like to hear about my gun nut friends who love to go out and target practice on prairie dogs.

Chik-fil-A is not a religious institution, however they are clearly trying to operate with Christian values as they see them. Likely they pray at work and quote scriptures.

Sean said...

So do you think that religion should be removed from the list of classes protected, since it is not genetic?

Anonymous said...

John-

Despite what I or society may feel about the people in your scenarios, what does any of it have to do with their ability to do the job?

If Chik-fil-A is not a religious institution, should they not be bound by secular law?

Joel

John said...

It really does not matter what I think, however since freedom of religion was pretty key to our founding, I wouldn't hold my breath.

By the way, I am fine with removing the protected status for religion. As Joel says, I am lucky to be a boring ELCA Lutheran. No unique head scarves, beards, hats, tattoos, hair styles, clothing or anything... No one will know my religion unless I bring it up, especially in MN.

I agree that Chik-fil-A needs to follow the laws. And I am sure there are dozens of greedy lawyers who will make sure they do.

John said...

Oh I forgot one question...

There are many aspects of an employee that impact the work place, even if they can do the job.

Hiring a loud abrasive person into a work place full of introverts may be a bad idea.

Hiring my gun toting animal killing friends into an office full of animal activists may be a problem...

I am ever so confused why employees would complain about not being welcome in a climate where they don't fit.

Kind of like a sheep wanting to be part of a wolf pack...

jerrye92002 said...

I hope they NEVER develop a genetic test for gay behavior, because I refuse to admit that human behavior is pre-ordained by genetics, OR that "survival of the fittest" would permit such a gene to survive through countless human generations.

Likewise, I hope they never find a genetic marker for gay orientation, because too many would use that as proof that gay behavior is not a choice, the same as the other case, as an inescapable determinant of behavior, and I want to believe that humans are better than that. Besides, we already HAVE a test for "gay." We simply ask, or we are told. Without witnessing somebody's personal sex life, we would have no other way of knowing. It's not like somebody is black or female, where you can tell by looking, and if it doesn't affect the ability to do the job, why would anyone bring it up?

I don't think Chick-Fil-A is a religious organization or run by religious zealots, not at all. But just as General Mills and now Target have weighed in on one side of the "gay rights" issue, so has Chik-Fil-A expressed its corporate political opinion. And in its hiring and franchising decisions, it is relying, no doubt, on past experience to say that certain kinds of people, in general, do not make good employees or franchisees. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, and we would hope that they would recognize such individuals regardless of class. On the other hand, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." With that many dollars on the line, I would hope management would ALWAYS "discriminate" in favor of the best candidate. And I would hope the lawyers would stay out of it. I dream.

John said...

I have pictures of my wife and daughters at work, I think gays and lesbians simply want employment at work places where they can do that same simple thing without worrying about being fired or harassed.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I think Target and Cargill are simply agreeing that it is a reasonable request. And I am pretty sure that all but the most fundamentalist companies will fall in line soon.

I mean if 50% of the population actively supports gay relationships and 3% of the work force consists of gay people, they will have no choice as Target found out.

John said...

Now would you really find it a bad thing to learn that God and nature hard wired you to be attracted to women?

Did you really have to think about if men or women attracted you sexually?

I never once saw my attraction to women as a choice.

jerrye92002 said...

"I mean if 50% of the population actively supports gay relationships and 3% of the work force consists of gay people, they will have no choice as Target found out."

If those are the numbers these CEOs are using, then maybe they are doing the right thing for their business and stockholders, but I seriously doubt it. 50% do NOT "actively" support gay relationships, and I think the vast majority would prefer not to know about it at all-- they are simply indifferent, live-and-let-live folks. And support for gay marriage, again, may be more passive, but in other states, where huge amounts of liberal money was NOT spent to distort the issue and steal the election, the vast majority of voters were opposed.

And again, as far as 3% (let's take that overblown number) of employees being gay, that may be, and you wouldn't want to openly discriminate against a good employee for that reason alone. But only a tiny fraction of those want to be married. So why take a political position that might offend 85% of your customers, to some degree, to satisfy what most certainly are a small percentage of your customers and employees?

Sure, those few who care a lot about the issue may shop at Target more, and most people don't care enough either way to change their shopping habits, but there are a fair number of people, I imagine, that WILL make a dent, more than enough to offset any potential gains. Personally, I hope they suffer a lot for caving to the pressure of a few extremists.

John said...

Jerry,
I think you are rapidly becoming one of those few extremists, but on the other side.

When the ELCA and other churches allow gay/lesbian Pastors and the majority of the biggest corporations are offering same sex partner benefits, the battle is pretty much over. In another generation or so this will likely be a non-issue for most Americans.

jerrye92002 said...

I think you're right; I am an extremist. When "the other side" decides that my "live and let live" attitude is unacceptable, and that I must swear allegiance to what I know to be wrong by tradition, faith, and common sense, I have no choice. It's sort of like the choice being given to Christians under the rule of ISIS in Iraq-- convert or die. Call me a pro-life-- MY life-- extremist, if you want.

John said...

Your "live and let live" attitude.

By that you mean...

You get to live openly with your family in a government sanctioned socially accepted household that comes with financial benefits.

While they get to live with their families as long as they keep it hidden. And if they do let it slip it is okay if they are forced to live in a new job, home, etc.

As for Christians and ISIS, I don't see anyone here who is going to cut off your head for worshipping the wrong religion.

In fact unless you are a Business Owner, Supervisor, Land Lord, Judge, etc I don't see this issue touching you or me at all. That is unless your church hires a gay pastor.

Anonymous said...

Jerry said, "Call me a pro-life-- MY life-- extremist, if you want."

But you're unwilling to let other people live their lives unencumbered by your dogma.

How "enlightened" of you.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Are you realy any different if you want to use legislation to force people to hire gays and lesbians against their personal beliefs?

All of this seems like two pots calling the kettle black.

Anonymous said...

Let's say that's true, that the positions are equal.

In other words, it's:

Gays and lesbians demanding equal opportunity

vs.

Employers demanding the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation

Whose rights take precedence when they are in direct conflict with each other?

If I were a business owner, could I discriminate against people who are openly Christian or exhibit Christian behavior, based on my personal beliefs?

Joel

John said...

To me it is a bit simpler:

Gays / Lesbians want the freedom to associate with who they choose. And they want society to be supportive of this freedom.

Religious Right folks want the freedom to associate with who they choose. And they want society to be supportive of this freedom.

Could you discriminate against a person based on their religion... Probably not for 2 reasons. 1. Freedom of religion is one of the founding credos for the country, a lot of people are very sensitive to it. 2. Would you really want to rule out almost half of your potential employee base.

If your company's culture is very animal friendly, you can and likely should discriminate against my openly gung ho hunter friends.

jerrye92002 said...

"You get to live openly with your family in a government sanctioned socially accepted household that comes with financial benefits.
While they get to live with their families as long as they keep it hidden. And if they do let it slip it is okay if they are forced to live in a new job, home, etc."

Not what I meant, of course. Live and let live means that you don't come around asking or demanding my acceptance of your lifestyle, and I don't come around asking for yours. And it means nothing unless it's part of the "job." Beyond that, yes, it's perhaps unfair, but there is and needs to be a thing called "social norming" that holds a society together. For example, in some societies it is OK to beat your wife or your dog. Here it is not. Just admitting to a gay orientation was once outside the "norm" and partly or fully ostracized. Now it is much less, even for some homosexual behaviors (like getting "married"). Eventually it may largely disappear as society sees less need for that value. Until then, it takes two sides to make a peace but only one side to make a war.

Anonymous said...

John-

Addressing your two reasons:

1. Freedom of religion is one of the founding credos for the country, a lot of people are very sensitive to it.

In my example, I am discriminating against Christians because of my religious belief. Do I not get to have mine? Why not?

2. Would you really want to rule out almost half of your potential employee base.

Does Chik-fil-A really want to rule out people who might be great employees?

Joel

Anonymous said...

Jerry said, "Live and let live means that you don't come around asking or demanding my acceptance of your lifestyle, and I don't come around asking for yours."

Great. So, where's the 'firing' line? Is it the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals?

In the not far distant past, homosexuals had to live in fear of losing their livelihoods at the mention of a significant other. Would you hold heterosexuals to the same standard?

I don't know about you, but I'd want employees that were 'whole people', unafraid of expressing themselves and discussing their lives freely and openly. It makes for happier, healthier people and work environs.

jerrye92002 said...

"I don't know about you, but I'd want employees that were 'whole people', unafraid of expressing themselves and discussing their lives freely and openly. It makes for happier, healthier people and work environs. "

And there are lots of companies where the telling of dirty jokes creates a "hostile work environment" that gets you sued and, while that can be taken to excess, in principle it is not unreasonable to ask that employees not deliberately offend one another. It's bad business. So what I want are good employees, who do their job, get along with fellow employees, and keep their opinions to themselves unless invited. You want to be free to talk about your lifestyle. I want to be feel free to be offended by that discussion.

Anonymous said...

What you're advocating is the ability to fire anyone for any reason, including offending your fragile sensibilities, whether it actually affects their job performance or not.

Welcome to 1899 everyone.

You are free to feel offended. What an awful life, being offended at every turn by the lives of other people.

When I'm an employer, I will fire people for using the Lord's name in vain. It offends me.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
1. Does your religion involve a deity of some kind? What is the name of this organized religion?

2. I would assume Chik-fil-A is fine with ruling out 60% of the population as potential employees. Otherwise they would not be so open about their hiring criteria and beliefs.

John said...

By the way, most of us are in the class called "employment at will".

Which means we can quit whenever we want to without cause or notice... And we can be fired the same way.

Though companies need to take some care or they risk a law suit and a bad reputation.

jerrye92002 said...

"What you're advocating is the ability to fire anyone for any reason, including offending your fragile sensibilities, whether it actually affects their job performance or not."

Where did I say that? If you took it that way, I'm sorry. Because what I meant is that those who deliberate offend their fellow workers should be warned (we're not that "fragile," after all), and then fired if the un-businesslike behavior repeats.

"What an awful life, being offended at every turn by the lives of other people."

Yes, it is awful that some people seem to think they can be so deliberately in-your-face offensive, and yet I am somehow not supposed to feel offended. It's really none of my business. Don't go out of your way to MAKE it my business. And it doesn't belong in a place of business.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, jerry, but mentioning your significant other in conversation is not "in-your-face offensive".

You still don't get it.

Joel

John said...

Sorry to ruin the fun.

I have closed this post for comments since you 2 didn't seem to be getting anywhere useful.

I am sure the topic will come up again in another post.