AA gets its reputation more from how schools apply it, I think. For example with medical schools, an African American with a 3.3GPA and 25 MCAT statistically has a very similar chance chance of getting an acceptance as a caucasian with a 3.6 and 30 MCAT.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Writes Op-Ed in Support of U.S. Employment Nondiscrimination Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AA gets its reputation more from how schools apply it, I think. For example with medical schools, an African American with a 3.3GPA and 25 MCAT statistically has a very similar chance chance of getting an acceptance as a caucasian with a 3.6 and 30 MCAT.
So what happened to separation between church and state? Oh, that's right- That only goes one-way these days.
So what IF a religious school doesn't want to hire gay teachers? Nobody's forcing anybody to go to that school. Members are free to leave the school and church if they want to a join another more "tolerant" church/school- Ah, the wonders of freedom of choice!
But I'm so glad that government is "protecting" us, though- I mean, the more laws the better, right? Maybe we can have a "straight anti-discrimination" law for businesses that mainly employ gay people? Yeah, that would really solve things! I mean a law with such noble intent could never have largely negative effects.
Folks, I know your hearts' are in the right place- but please stop being distracted by laws that won't have any real or positive effects. Discrimination will continue wherever it is, and no law will stop it. Frankly, businesses are free to hire who they choose and there's no way to prove why. This is a social issue and it has to be dealt with socially. Clamoring for more and more laws is the wrong way to go- it just makes the government bigger and hungrier.
I'm "Hispanic" and I don't car for Hispanic anti-discrimination laws. If a business doesn't hire me or serve me because of my ethnicity I just won't go there and my friends and I will boycott the damned place. I was once not hired for a job because I wasn't a "jock" and the employer didn't think I would "fit in to his team". I thought that was rather unfair. I was perfectly capable of doing the job and get along fine with many kinds of people. But I think passing a "non-jock anti-discrimination" law would be ridiculous and anti-productive.
The situation with blacks in this country was VERY different. Blacks were simply being denied entry to whole parts of society just because of their race. I have NEVER heard, read or seen of ANY situation on any kind of similar scale regarding gays. Does discrimination happen? All the time! With gays, with blacks, with women, with non-jocks, with blonds, etc. But you will ever get rid of that with laws.
The only time legal intervention may be necessary is with the type of whole-sale discrimination blacks experienced on so many levels, for so many years that it simply did not allow them to move up in society. And even then, they went the wrong way with affirmative action, which has actually weakened the black community instead of strengthening it (which perhaps was the plan all along, anyway)!
Meanwhile, as we are being distracted by the entertaining hand of the media, all our phone conversations and Internet activity is being scooped up and put into databases larger than anything the KGB dreamed of. ALL of us- Straight, gay, black, hispanic, are having our BASIC civil rights violated 24/7 with a President who said he would scale back or stop Bush's illegal surveillance programs. And yet we are cheering more useless laws that sound pretty but just add to the cost of legislation and the already bloated size of government.
Sorry, I won't be joining in this nonsense.
So what IF a religious school doesn't want to hire gay teachers? Nobody's forcing anybody to go to that school. Members are free to leave the school and church if they want to a join another more "tolerant" church/school- Ah, the wonders of freedom of choice!
But I'm so glad that government is "protecting" us, though- I mean, the more laws the better, right? Maybe we can have a "straight anti-discrimination" law for businesses that mainly employ gay people? Yeah, that would really solve things! I mean a law with such noble intent could never have largely negative effects.
Folks, I know your hearts' are in the right place- but please stop being distracted by laws that won't have any real or positive effects. Discrimination will continue wherever it is, and no law will stop it. Frankly, businesses are free to hire who they choose and there's no way to prove why. This is a social issue and it has to be dealt with socially. Clamoring for more and more laws is the wrong way to go- it just makes the government bigger and hungrier.
I'm "Hispanic" and I don't car for Hispanic anti-discrimination laws. If a business doesn't hire me or serve me because of my ethnicity I just won't go there and my friends and I will boycott the damned place. I was once not hired for a job because I wasn't a "jock" and the employer didn't think I would "fit in to his team". I thought that was rather unfair. I was perfectly capable of doing the job and get along fine with many kinds of people. But I think passing a "non-jock anti-discrimination" law would be ridiculous and anti-productive.
The situation with blacks in this country was VERY different. Blacks were simply being denied entry to whole parts of society just because of their race. I have NEVER heard, read or seen of ANY situation on any kind of similar scale regarding gays. Does discrimination happen? All the time! With gays, with blacks, with women, with non-jocks, with blonds, etc. But you will ever get rid of that with laws.
The only time legal intervention may be necessary is with the type of whole-sale discrimination blacks experienced on so many levels, for so many years that it simply did not allow them to move up in society. And even then, they went the wrong way with affirmative action, which has actually weakened the black community instead of strengthening it (which perhaps was the plan all along, anyway)!
Meanwhile, as we are being distracted by the entertaining hand of the media, all our phone conversations and Internet activity is being scooped up and put into databases larger than anything the KGB dreamed of. ALL of us- Straight, gay, black, hispanic, are having our BASIC civil rights violated 24/7 with a President who said he would scale back or stop Bush's illegal surveillance programs. And yet we are cheering more useless laws that sound pretty but just add to the cost of legislation and the already bloated size of government.
Sorry, I won't be joining in this nonsense.
For a short while, after overthrowing tyranny.
Freedom means being able to live as one pleases - within criminal law. It does Not mean always doing things the right way - as perceived by some.
Why try so hard to defend the status quo, hust because you have never witnessed it in your one business doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Equality is the fundemental right all civilisations should built upon. Every social problem in the history of the United States can be contributed to inequality.
If just one person is treated unequal due to their gender or who they love then this should be brought in to place but we know thattheproblem is much larger than that so the real question is why has this taken so long to implement and to take a really close look at ourselves, our societies and our elected officials because as a civilisation we must represent ever person and move for a better future for all.
To you specifically I ask look at yourself and think why you came to the conclusion that equality in the workplace is a non issue, think what made you feel that way and what caused your ignorance that because you havent seen it then it cant be a real issue.
S
syd430
Guest
I almost chocked when I read this crap.
You say things were bad for black people .... Damn right they were and still are, most prisoners in the US the largest prison to population ratio in the world are young african american men.
Hispanics are heavily stereotypes and prejudiced, this is a well known problem that is cruel and needs to be worked and same as my previous post because you dont see the issue doesnt mean it's not there.
The biggest issue though is you say Youve never read or heard of the same scale of treatment towards gay people that affected black people. This leads me to think one of three things, either your homophobic, ignorant or been living under a rock for nearly 50 years.
The 70's America it was an horrific place to be gay, if you were beaten half to death on the streets it was probably by a cop, your homes, businesses, bars, restaurants were raided, attacked burned.
You would be sat in a bar only to have police with their badges covered come and savagely beat you and mock you and degrade you in the street just because you were gay. Families outcasted their once loved ones, church and state both gunning for oppression and segregation of gay people. Your not allowed on public transport or to be teachers or in shops...
thats why the Castro was such a well known place in the 70's where Gay people could retreat to and have one area where they could try and feel safe. However they werent many were beaten and killed here as it just made them easier to locate and terrorise, and when people tried to make it better it ended in tragedy with the death of politician Harvey Milk but this spurred on his friends and fellow activists to fight for equal rights.
Another issue with forcing the gay minority underground into an unspeakable sub-human state of living is they couldnt get the medical treatment they needed as you didnt dare go to a hospital, this lead to the spread of AIDS as without the proper education people just didnt know what it was.
This treatment of the LGBT community has persisted to this day and in parts of the world is worse than ever, generations young and old indoctrinated by american financed preachers and missionaries.
Every day I can read of people being savagely attacked and brutally murdered or locked away for life for just being gay, it is sick. Even if your not attacked or killed you face being outcasted by those that are meant to love you, the physical and emotional torment being LGBT is so great we are seeing massive levels of reported suicides predominantly by young people especially reported in the USA.
So just because you havent read or heard about it let me assure you it is very real and equality law to promote the fact we are all equal and must be treated with respect will always be a good thing and any one who thinks otherwise well I am sure you have your reasons.
That picture of Tim Cook is so ominous looking. Stop using it!
Its still Halloween in Apple HQ.
Simply because you haven't seen it does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
False dilemma, you're limiting the scope of the AA argument, and I feel like you don't quite understand it.
Partially true. I don't think I've ever met a woman who wanted to be a coal miner or a man who wanted to be a kindergarten teacher. That said, taking a "let it be" approach to equality often leaves room for those who will discriminate. The engineering program at a college I briefly attended was encouraging women into STEM programs because there were still quite a few people in the engineering department who felt that women didn't belong there.
That's what makes laws like this feel-good legislation quite often. It's very hard to see the discrimination in ways where you can identify it. A homosexual man applies for a job, and gets turned down. How does he prove it was for his sexual orientation? He can't -- unless the people making the decision were stupid enough to tell him to his face or record the reason in a document he gets access to, other than that it's just his word against theirs, with the burden of proof on him.
No. They would hires the cheapest person who seems good enough to start the job and pick up what he needs to on his own. The very best person for many jobs is usually the person wanting a salary to match their skills/experience. There are enough stories on outsourced-to-India coding and support to prove this.
I do agree with this part, though. I work in an IT-related field, and we have like four women in a business employing over 80 people. And all but one of those women is in a receptionist or HR/accounting position.
I'm truly shocked at some of the sentiments I'm reading here. Thinking about these issues keeps me up and my stomach churning.
The reality is this. It's socially acceptable for folks in all sorts of "respectable" positions of authority like legislators, clergy, governors, educators, to talk about LGBT people like they're flawed, perverse, sinful, despicable, and sometimes even sub-human. LGBT men and women have often spent their lives in sham marriages, or they feel the need to hide their relationships altogether, because of social, religious, and family judgment. Adolescents and teens jump off bridges and hang themselves because they're bullied and degraded by peers and adults alike.
Yeah, many of us do have it tough we're scorned, rejected, abused, assaulted. Let's not shy away from that reality. But what's even more horrifying is that people of influence people who should know better often seem to think it's not really a big problem, or that we bring it on ourselves, or that it's overreaching to provide us the means to live with our constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
This legislation doesn't mean you have to give us your approval, or believe we're "saved," or love us, or any other hang-up that is standing in your way. That's all between you and your conscience/higher power.
All this legislation means is that LGBT men and women can have some modicum of security that we are employable, no matter what state we live in, and that we cannot be capriciously terminated from our jobs to suit the moral or religious predilections of our employers.
A recent confluence of events (shifts in public opinion, passage of legislation, recognition of rights by judiciary, etc) has started a domino effect. I believe that this is essentially an irreversible process. Once rights are recognized and affirmed, it is very difficult to later take them away. I would encourage everyone to take a snapshot of your comments or otherwise document your current state of mind revisit those thoughts 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and ask yourself if you're proud of the stance your younger self took on this issue?
For those who think legislation is not needed to ensure this process continues, please explain that to the generations of Americans who have lived and died with diminished rights, under state-endorsed discrimination.
The reality is this. It's socially acceptable for folks in all sorts of "respectable" positions of authority like legislators, clergy, governors, educators, to talk about LGBT people like they're flawed, perverse, sinful, despicable, and sometimes even sub-human. LGBT men and women have often spent their lives in sham marriages, or they feel the need to hide their relationships altogether, because of social, religious, and family judgment. Adolescents and teens jump off bridges and hang themselves because they're bullied and degraded by peers and adults alike.
Yeah, many of us do have it tough we're scorned, rejected, abused, assaulted. Let's not shy away from that reality. But what's even more horrifying is that people of influence people who should know better often seem to think it's not really a big problem, or that we bring it on ourselves, or that it's overreaching to provide us the means to live with our constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
This legislation doesn't mean you have to give us your approval, or believe we're "saved," or love us, or any other hang-up that is standing in your way. That's all between you and your conscience/higher power.
All this legislation means is that LGBT men and women can have some modicum of security that we are employable, no matter what state we live in, and that we cannot be capriciously terminated from our jobs to suit the moral or religious predilections of our employers.
A recent confluence of events (shifts in public opinion, passage of legislation, recognition of rights by judiciary, etc) has started a domino effect. I believe that this is essentially an irreversible process. Once rights are recognized and affirmed, it is very difficult to later take them away. I would encourage everyone to take a snapshot of your comments or otherwise document your current state of mind revisit those thoughts 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and ask yourself if you're proud of the stance your younger self took on this issue?
For those who think legislation is not needed to ensure this process continues, please explain that to the generations of Americans who have lived and died with diminished rights, under state-endorsed discrimination.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
No. They will have a valid reason to deny someone a job, and then people like you come in and say "The only reason you didn't hire him is because he was gay! Wahhh!" That's why a lot of people are dubious about these non-discrimination laws. It results in "you are free to hire whoever is the most qualified, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, as long as you don't end up with too many white people, men or heterosexuals. If that happens, you have to diversify, even if that means not taking all the most qualified applicants."
I just love how this works: the extremely wealthy press for legislation to control and destroy their competition while they have the money to pay off government and avoid judgement.
Good times for big-corporate/government America. It will create a lot of government jobs to aid in lawsuits and audits that destroy any business which doesn't pay into the system under the table.
Exactly.
Every regulation is merely another chain to bind the people.
Good times for big-corporate/government America. It will create a lot of government jobs to aid in lawsuits and audits that destroy any business which doesn't pay into the system under the table.
Exactly.
Every regulation is merely another chain to bind the people.
From the o.p.
Correct me if I am wrong as I don't have access to the legislation (probably even if I had I wouldn't understand) but many=/=all. Also it does not prohibit state, military or religious employers from discriminating. It does not seem to solve things if my assumption is correct.
On another note even if the perfect legislation was made and voted on this case, it wouldn't address the root of this problem which is that people don't like other people because of their sexuality, race, or whatever else. Ideal society, I know.
Correct me if I am wrong as I don't have access to the legislation (probably even if I had I wouldn't understand) but many=/=all. Also it does not prohibit state, military or religious employers from discriminating. It does not seem to solve things if my assumption is correct.
On another note even if the perfect legislation was made and voted on this case, it wouldn't address the root of this problem which is that people don't like other people because of their sexuality, race, or whatever else. Ideal society, I know.
Ditto. No idea why MR keep choosing to use such a terrible picture. Even the one on the wikipedia page is better.That picture of Tim Cook is so ominous looking. Stop using it!
Considering your prior rants in support of collusion, you are really lacking in credibility.
If you talk about "an employer", then hiring decisions usually go through multiple levels. Unless the person who decides to discriminate is the one making the hiring decision, and not sitting at some higher level, there are witnesses. No lawyers will help you if someone stands up and says "I was told not to hire this man/woman because he/she was gay".
----------
Show me where Apple is lagging.
Samsung just proved with their ridiculous watch product that they are absolutely helpless if they can't follow Apple.
So, let's get this straight- you start your reply by saying my post is "crap", calling me a bigot, an ignorant or a hermit because I have different observations than you. Is this supposed to scare me into compliance with your views, serve as an intellectual starting point, or do you just gratuitously like to insult posters? Do you know what civil debating is about, or is that art lost on you?
I am BTW, aware of Stonewall and other instances of abuse. They were horrible! But I am also aware that much of California and of the nation is at least gay-tolernat today, and many parts very gay-friendly. The tide has certainly turned- and it has little to do with legislation.
But no- it still doesn't compare to the incredible discrimination that blacks have suffered. Gays were never enslaved nor limited to a "gay" water fountain. Gays were never segregated to the degree blacks were. Nobody locks their doors because they see a gay man or woman walking around the neighborhood at night. It's not comparable.
There are MANY people who are beaten and killed every year by cops just because cops feel its their duty to use the most violent, deadly force on unarmed citizens for the slightest of perceived threats or insults.
As for public transportation- you don't need to pass a special "gay rights" law for that- public transportation that is government-funded MUST be available for all! You can already sue the government for discrimination if you are not allowed to.
Okay, so what's your solution here? Should we legislate that families MUST love their LGBT members? Maybe we should forcibly medicate those family members who are homophobic? Or charge them with abuse for not loving their own? As for being locked away for life for being gay, please show me recent cases of this happening in the US. And please show me why new laws are necessary to stop these invisible jail-sentences.
As for suicide rates- Yes, it's a horrible thing. But nothing's stopping you from becoming a therapist to offer your help to those in need, or to donate to a charity for suicide prevention and counseling services, or from donating your time to a local gay-friendly community center. Do you understand that you and your neighbors and the country can take positive action to stop these things without government force?
Yes, I do have my reasons. Do you realize that NO COP should be BEATING a citizen, PERIOD? Do you realize that it was ALWAYS illegal to do so? So why would it make any difference if "No beating people because they're gay" is codified into law? Don't you realize that "No beating people"- PERIOD should be and IS enough for any law-abiding police force? There are no gay rights, there are only Human Rights that should be afforded to ALL, no matter WHAT other group they belong to.
You can't legislate every human behavior or social ill away. The law is a powerful tool, and you should only use it when its absolutely necessary. The beauty of love and compassion come by way of free choices, not by legislation. Maybe some of the people who are against this sort of legislation aren't so homophobic as much as they are simply against yet another law legislating their behavior being shoved down their throats. But of course, it always easier to stereotype.
Again, I agree that EVERYONE is equal in rights, so I don't see the logic or wisdom in adding yet more legislation when the law already says that. It's just big government expanding further.
Last edited:
Even the most prejudiced capitalist will find it hard to discriminate against someone able to make them money.
What some don't like to admit is that for at least a few decades now if you are good and can do the job better than the next person you can succeed. The 80s/90s generation was probably the first to be genuine baffled by racism. Speaking to teenagers now it seems it's even possible to be 'out' at high school and survive. Being gay was still taboo when I was at school.
My young daughter, who's always lived in a multicultural area, has never pointed out racial differences between people even though she wants to know anything about everything. Skin colour's just like hair colour to her.
Does anyone care that the Apple boss is gay? Does anyone care than the ARM chips in their mobile devices were invented by a British transexual?
But there's a whole politically correct 'diversity' industry that's sprung up than seems to exist only to tell any group that isn't a male WASP that they are a 'victim' and need special help and attention. Not only is this a huge waste of money but it creates antagonism where they would otherwise be none and minorities are accused of getting 'special treatment' not afforded to the majority.
What some don't like to admit is that for at least a few decades now if you are good and can do the job better than the next person you can succeed. The 80s/90s generation was probably the first to be genuine baffled by racism. Speaking to teenagers now it seems it's even possible to be 'out' at high school and survive. Being gay was still taboo when I was at school.
My young daughter, who's always lived in a multicultural area, has never pointed out racial differences between people even though she wants to know anything about everything. Skin colour's just like hair colour to her.
Does anyone care that the Apple boss is gay? Does anyone care than the ARM chips in their mobile devices were invented by a British transexual?
But there's a whole politically correct 'diversity' industry that's sprung up than seems to exist only to tell any group that isn't a male WASP that they are a 'victim' and need special help and attention. Not only is this a huge waste of money but it creates antagonism where they would otherwise be none and minorities are accused of getting 'special treatment' not afforded to the majority.
Wrong, you're describing EQUAL opportunity employment which I completely support. Affirmative action is a quota based system - e.g. "you must hire at least 15% black employees, even if they're not the best applicants for the job, or even qualified"
I support ENDA, and I support all non-discrimination laws. I feel affirmative action is racist and evil.
ha ha ha ha ha. Though a very valid point.
Tim no doubt is backing the hiring part, not the promotion part
One could argue that certain industries are bias towards certain genders.