3 ms·

I'd encourage you to introspect on this. "Ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group" is a common position, a

I'd encourage you to introspect on this. "Ethnic and religious minorities shouldn't have to assimilate the values of the majority group" is a common position, and one I strongly agree with. But you also seem to be saying that, across a pretty wide range of contentious social issues, everyone needs to assimilate your beliefs and you can't work with anyone who hasn't. Do you see the tension here?

ido 6y ago
When it comes to basic rights (sometimes even the right to exist), yes that is what I'm saying. Homophobia, Transphobia and so on are not better than racism & religious discrimination. This is sometimes hard to see for people who are themselves not part of the "contentious" group (and not always due to malevolence, sometimes it's just hard to sympathize with people who aren't like yourself).
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not about "better than". The problem is that your principles directly conflict. How would you respond, for example, to a devout Muslim with religious objections to gay marriage?
  - ido 6y ago
    I would respond to them in exactly the same way I'd respond to a devout Christian who religiously objects to gay marriage. And I would still not think Islamophobia is justified (just like the existence of homophobic Christians doesn't condemn Christianity & Christians as a whole).
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But what is the way you'd respond? It doesn't sound like you'd fire them. So it seems like your only option is to say "alright, I don't agree with you about this, but that's fine as long as you understand that you can't go around arguing this at work". Which is a reasonable solution, don't get me wrong. But this kind of solution is what people mean when they talk about limiting politics at work, and these kinds of conflicts are why it's a good idea. In order to work with people who don't share your precise values, there have to be ground rules to minimize conflict.
      - ido 6y ago
        The problem is that a broad "no politics at work" ban also limits you from calling out bigotry as that would be seen as political as well. You need a more refined approach rather than an all out ban hammer. How I'd respond to homophobia in the workplace: I will call it out and expect that person to get the hint and no longer make homophobic comments at work. If they repeatedly continue to do so afterwards then yes I'd expect them to be fired, but it will not be out of the blue or without warning. EDIT: I think the current top thread already better formulates my opinion so I suggest reading that instead of continuing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075
    - stale2002 6y ago
      So are you basically saying that you would fire anyone who is a Muslim, if according to their own beliefs/faith, they don't support gay marriage? Your position is probably straight up illegal by the way.
      - ido 6y ago
        No I would call them out if they make a homophobic comment at work & expect them to get the hint and stop. If they don't stop then yes they should be fired, and it has nothing to do with Islam. You seem to expect this to be an inevitability but I've worked with plenty of Muslims in my 18 years career as I live in a city with almost half a million Muslim residents and I've never encountered a Muslim being homophobic at work. I have in the past called out people making misogynistic comments at work & generally people do get the hint and stop doing that. If they don't then you've identified a problem. EDIT: I think the current top thread already better formulates my opinion so I suggest reading that instead of continuing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075
        stale2002 6y ago
        > make a homophobic comment at work See, but here is the rub. What if the comment is just "according to my islamic faith, my religious belief system does not support gay marriage". For all I know, you would call this statement homophobic, but if you punished this person for saying this a couple times, it would absolutely be illegal. > Nothing to do with Islam. Yes it does. Many people, do not support gay marriage because it a part of their faith. And if you fired or punished them for stating that this is their faith, then it would absolutely be illegal discrimination on your part.
        ido 6y ago
        That's what I mean in the other branch about more refined approach than an absolute "no politics" hammer. Where/why would someone say that multiple times in the company slack (never happened to me despite working with lots of muslims and lots of gay people btw)? If they say that as a reaction to a gay man posting somewhere "I'm out of office next week as John & I are getting married" than answering this with "with all due respect, as a Muslim I can't support you getting married to a man" is out of place. If they repeat after being called out that then yes that's a problem. They have the very reasonable possibility of simply not saying anything but that may require developing a company culture where people learn if and when to do that - this may require some "political" discussion between consenting adults and that's fine!
heavyset_go 6y ago
People have used their religions to give a pass to discrimination for a long time[1]. Today's scapegoat is gay and trans people, but a few decades ago it was miscegenation. People discriminated against mixed-race couples and said it was a core tenet of their religion[1]: > Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. When it comes to discrimination and freedom of religion, the ACLU[2] has this to say: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion...

ido 6y ago

When it comes to basic rights (sometimes even the right to exist), yes that is what I'm saying. Homophobia, Transphobia and so on are not better than racism & religious discrimination. This is sometimes hard to see for people who are themselves not part of the "contentious" group (and not always due to malevolence, sometimes it's just hard to sympathize with people who aren't like yourself).

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not about "better than". The problem is that your principles directly conflict. How would you respond, for example, to a devout Muslim with religious objections to gay marriage?
- ido 6y ago
  I would respond to them in exactly the same way I'd respond to a devout Christian who religiously objects to gay marriage. And I would still not think Islamophobia is justified (just like the existence of homophobic Christians doesn't condemn Christianity & Christians as a whole).
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But what is the way you'd respond? It doesn't sound like you'd fire them. So it seems like your only option is to say "alright, I don't agree with you about this, but that's fine as long as you understand that you can't go around arguing this at work". Which is a reasonable solution, don't get me wrong. But this kind of solution is what people mean when they talk about limiting politics at work, and these kinds of conflicts are why it's a good idea. In order to work with people who don't share your precise values, there have to be ground rules to minimize conflict.
    - ido 6y ago
      The problem is that a broad "no politics at work" ban also limits you from calling out bigotry as that would be seen as political as well. You need a more refined approach rather than an all out ban hammer. How I'd respond to homophobia in the workplace: I will call it out and expect that person to get the hint and no longer make homophobic comments at work. If they repeatedly continue to do so afterwards then yes I'd expect them to be fired, but it will not be out of the blue or without warning. EDIT: I think the current top thread already better formulates my opinion so I suggest reading that instead of continuing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075
  - stale2002 6y ago
    So are you basically saying that you would fire anyone who is a Muslim, if according to their own beliefs/faith, they don't support gay marriage? Your position is probably straight up illegal by the way.
    - ido 6y ago
      No I would call them out if they make a homophobic comment at work & expect them to get the hint and stop. If they don't stop then yes they should be fired, and it has nothing to do with Islam. You seem to expect this to be an inevitability but I've worked with plenty of Muslims in my 18 years career as I live in a city with almost half a million Muslim residents and I've never encountered a Muslim being homophobic at work. I have in the past called out people making misogynistic comments at work & generally people do get the hint and stop doing that. If they don't then you've identified a problem. EDIT: I think the current top thread already better formulates my opinion so I suggest reading that instead of continuing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27001075
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > make a homophobic comment at work See, but here is the rub. What if the comment is just "according to my islamic faith, my religious belief system does not support gay marriage". For all I know, you would call this statement homophobic, but if you punished this person for saying this a couple times, it would absolutely be illegal. > Nothing to do with Islam. Yes it does. Many people, do not support gay marriage because it a part of their faith. And if you fired or punished them for stating that this is their faith, then it would absolutely be illegal discrimination on your part.
        ido 6y ago
        That's what I mean in the other branch about more refined approach than an absolute "no politics" hammer. Where/why would someone say that multiple times in the company slack (never happened to me despite working with lots of muslims and lots of gay people btw)? If they say that as a reaction to a gay man posting somewhere "I'm out of office next week as John & I are getting married" than answering this with "with all due respect, as a Muslim I can't support you getting married to a man" is out of place. If they repeat after being called out that then yes that's a problem. They have the very reasonable possibility of simply not saying anything but that may require developing a company culture where people learn if and when to do that - this may require some "political" discussion between consenting adults and that's fine!

heavyset_go 6y ago

People have used their religions to give a pass to discrimination for a long time[1]. Today's scapegoat is gay and trans people, but a few decades ago it was miscegenation. People discriminated against mixed-race couples and said it was a core tenet of their religion[1]: > Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. When it comes to discrimination and freedom of religion, the ACLU[2] has this to say: > Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today. [1] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5513&context=flr https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55... [2] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/ https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion...