Gay descrimination is illegal but is still happening and should be stoped.
Debate Rounds (3)
I think discrimination against sexual orientation is morally wrong but it is not illegal. There should not be a surprise that discrimination against someone's sexual orientation is happening. But that would be a hard legal case to prove.
When I go down the street I can see if someone is a Caucasian American or an African American. I can distinctively observe if someone is a man or woman (hopefully). Also if someone is wearing a hijab, I might assume they are a Muslim. If a man is wearing a Yamaka, I will assume he is Jewish. But when I go down the street I can not know if someone is a homosexual or not. I can have my assumptions but why would I suspect it unless they reveal it. This is why discrimination against sexual orientation is hard case to prove. You have to show that the person discriminating actually knows the other persons' sexual orientation and intends on discriminating because of it.
Nevertheless, discriminating against sexual orientation is not illegal as you falsely claim. Sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act covers national origin, race, gender, and religion. To quote the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964: "Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin."
Sexual orientation is not covered now. Maybe in the future it should be extended to protect sexual orientation. It is a really a question of group rights and whether someone is being discriminated because of their group(race, religion, gender) or as an individual.
To quote the actual Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When you implied that a gay person is not easily recognized because there is no homosexual dress fashion so to speak, I have to disagree. One who is gay may show signs in character, habits, or yes even clothing tastes. if you are a religious person who is against homosexuality, you may be prone to suspect one is gay just by these qualities. And, if this religious person happens to be the man or woman that is interviewing you for a job, it is likely discrimination will occur.
You stated that one must know the person is gay to then discriminate. The arguments in my last paragraph that one can assume a man or woman is gay by observing behavior, clothes, etc. Based on studies, if a potential employer believes that someone is gay, this person is forty percent less likely to succeed in getting the job.
So to conclude this argument, although there is no official law, some local government protect the rights of homosexuals. Also, because it is actually easy for one to assume one as gay, the possibility of discrimination occurring is high.
I believe that our government should add the protection of gay rights to the Constitution.
That is a stereotype and not true. If a man is a metrosexual, he is not automatically a homosexual. If a woman enjoys playing basketball, that does not make her a lesbian.
"if you are a religious person who is against homosexuality, you may be prone to suspect one is gay just by these qualities. And, if this religious person happens to be the man or woman that is interviewing you for a job, it is likely discrimination will occur."
How do you know this? Provide some empirical evidence to make such a libelous claim.
"Based on studies, if a potential employer believes that someone is gay, this person is forty percent less likely to succeed in getting the job."
The case study you have provided does not indicate that. The academic claimed he was the "treasurer of a collegiate gay organization" on his resume. Nevertheless, how does he definitely know he wasn't rejected for other things he listed on the resume? This is a deceitful tactic that academics like to play on occasion. Correlation is not causation. He has not provided the fact that he was not hired because he associated with a homosexual organization. I could use his statistics in reverse. I could say that since he was part of a homosexual organization, he was 60% more likely to be hired over the other potential candidates.
"So to conclude this argument, although there is no official law, some local government protect the rights of homosexuals. "
Then it is not illegal according to Federal law to discriminate against homosexuals. You have refuted your own claim that it was illegal in the United States.
"I believe that our government should add the protection of gay rights to the Constitution."
This is a debate for another time. No, the Constitution should not be amended to protect homosexuals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be amended to include sexual orientation. Why protect homosexual rights and not bisexual or heterosexual rights?
I am aware that these traits are stereotypical. I was trying to say that a religious person might use anything to discriminate a person if he/she presumes him or her to be gay.
You, on multiple occasions, quoted the constitution. One of the constitutions main goals was to form a more perfect union without such discrimination, but you insist that gays should not be protected by the document. To truly follow the constitution, we will protect all of our citizens no mater of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Thank you for participating and I complement you on your arguments.
Again, how do you know that? The statement above is presumptuous about how a religious person may behave.
"You, on multiple occasions, quoted the constitution."
Why is my opponent intentionally lying? I have not quoted the Constitution a single time in this debate.
"One of the constitutions main goals was to form a more perfect union without such discrimination, but you insist that gays should not be protected by the document."
No, the Constitution does not protect group rights at all. The Constitution protects individual rights but not group rights. For example, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Why should the Constitution be amended to open the floodgates of litigation? Here is an example of one of the problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If someone is drunk then comes in to work and urinates all over their office cubical. Then goes on to their managers' office to punch their boss in the face. That person will be extremely difficult to fire because alcoholism is considered a disease, not a choice. However, there could be a criminal case because of the violence inflicted upon their boss. But they can not be fired on the grounds of their behavior while drunk.
Lawsuits claiming discrimination for sexual orientation will be abused like the other protections of the Civil Rights Act. The Constitution should not be responsible for this abuse of law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should cover sexual orientation. Again, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects groups from discrimination in the public or private sector. The Constitution should not be held liable.
The Pro side has admitted in round 3 that there was no official law to protect the right of of homosexuals. We are discussing Federal law and not state laws. So in essence, the Pro refuted their own claim. Vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.