There are arguments for and against a National Civil Rights Act that would extend a protected status to homosexuals. First, I feel it is necessary to define what I think a protected status would encompass. It would ensure that gays are not discriminated in any way because of their sexual practices. This status would be enforced in all situations where the government can exercise its power to end such discrimination. My personal feeling toward this topic, opposes, the National Civil Rights Act. There are several arguments that would justify legislation to create a National Civil Rights Act to protect gays from discrimination.
First, homosexuals are American citizens. Our democracy instills the belief that all citizens should enjoy equal opportunity under the law. The keyword here is opportunity. Without granting protected status, gays do not have the same opportunity heterosexuals have. For example, it is hard for openly gay couples to find housing. Some landowners prevent gays couples from getting a house or apartment just because of their discriminating views. If a protected status were granted, it would ensure that homosexuals at least have the same opportunity of receiving the type of housing that the heterosexuals majority has.
This leads to another point, passing this type of National Civil Rights Act does not necessarily condone homosexuality, it just makes sure that they are receiving the same opportunities they would if they were not gay. A good way to view this is by thinking of homosexuals as vertically challenged people who cant reach food on the top shelf. On the other hand, heterosexuals can reach the food. A Civil Rights Act would serve as a stool allowing them to get the food like everyone else. Keep in mind that they government merely acts as a stool. If they get u there and there is no food, the government, the stool in this case, does not provide any.
The Term Paper on How Childrens Act 1989 Protects Children
In this essay going to explain how children act 1989 protects children and what circumstances are they used? I’m going to outline the section 17 and 47 of children act and what they are and how they would be used to protect children and in what circumstances are the act used. I will be outlining how they could benefit the child. When would the family support be used the most and in what ...
It just allows the opportunity to get up there. Another reason a protected status should be granted to homosexuals is that there is evidence that shows homosexuality is a genetic trait, according to various news reports. Therefore, being born into a heterosexual domination world, gays are dealt an immediate handicap. Like other Americans with handicaps, homosexuals should be protected against discrimination derived from their genetically oriented trait. Gays should me treated as any other minority. On the other hand, there are arguments to refute a National Civil Rights Act granted to homosexuals.
Granting homosexuals a protected status really gives them more rights than others. This is especially apparent in the job sector. In North Carolina, employers enter into a doctrine of Employ of Will. This means, excluding contracts, employees can quit when they want and employers can fire their employees when they want. A protected status granted to gays would make it very difficult to fire or not hire them. Its hard to prove that an employee was fired because if their poor work skills and not their sexual origin.
The burden of proof is switched to the employer and they would have to go to such measures as hiring a lawyer and wasting their valuable time. It is almost as if they are granted tenure for being gay. This whole process would infringe on our beloved notion of American freedom. Granting homosexuals a protected status also would infringe on the Freedom of Religion clause in the Bill of Rights. Many denominations claim that homosexuality is denounced in the Bible and therefore granting such a status would infringe on their religious views. An example of this conflict can be seen in the argument of whether or not to allow homosexuals in the clergy. If a National Civil Rights Act was passed, religions could have to allow homosexuals to be ordained despite the religious views.
The repercussions of this legislation would offset the majoritys views. This goes against the founders theory of majority rule in our government. An example of how this will hurt the majority is in the military. Officials in the military have repeatedly stated that homosexuals in the military create conflicts with morale and trust among soldiers. Hence, a National Civil Rights Act would hinder our militarys performance, which is definitely a concern to the majority of American citizens. So, passing such legislation would give the homosexual minority too many benefits, which would infringe upon the rights and beliefs of the majority.
The Term Paper on Civil War 7
... the repeal of all state laws barring homosexual acts between consenting adults. 1977: First National ... march on Washington supporting federal civil rights legislation protecting gay men and lesbians from ... elected to Congress. 1917: The Jones Act grants full citizenship to Puerto Ricans and ... The ruling, which invalidates North Carolina's majority African American 12th congressional district, is ...
A major concern with the military soldiers would be the homosexuals living in the same barracks. It is my opinion that a National Civil Rights Act granting protected status to homosexuals should not be passed. I feel that the problems the act would bring about would far outweigh the advantages. In my opinion passing such an act would sanction homosexuality. I think this poses some problems. First, in half of the United States oral and anal sex are illegal.
If passing a National Civil Rights Act somewhat sanctions homosexuality, are they gays supposed to just hold hands? These legislations would contradict, and therefore the Civil Rights Act should not be passed. Next, I feel that sanctioning homosexuality would hurt our efforts to stop the spread of the AIDS virus. It is thought that the virus was first transmitted through the homosexual community. So passing an act protecting homosexuals would not help society from that standpoint. Apart from the fact that I feel the legislation would sanction homosexuality, I feel that it would cause too much of a burden on society as a whole. In instances such as in the workforce, the heterosexual majority will have to endure too much to correct a problem that I feel is not great.
Also, I do not see what would stop a heterosexual from saying he is a homosexual just to increase his or her job security. In the end, this type of legislation would not help the entire nation. I feel that, as the founders wanted, all legislation passed should be looked at from all sides and then it should be determined if it helps the majority of American citizens. A National Civil Act should not be passed because although the minority would benefit, too much of the majority would suffer.
The Review on Cival Rights Act 1964
When the Government Stood Up For Civil Rights "All my life I've been sick and tired, and now I'm just sick and tired of being sick and tired. No one can honestly say Negroes are satisfied. We've only been patient, but how much more patience can we have?" Mrs. Hamer said these words in 1964, a month and a day before the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be signed into law by President Lyndon ...
