Bullying & Homophobia In Today's Youth

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

She said she can't live her life the way she wants to as a Doctor in Ireland.
She didn't say "I don't want to be in employment in a situation where I can be fired for my sexual orientation under Section 37, even though there is no record of any Doctor ever being discriminated against under it".

There's a massively, yawning gulf between the two.

She doesn't want to be in a situation where she could in theory be discriminated against for her sexual orientation.
Therefore if she is living in a situation in which she can in theory be discriminated against for her sexual orientation she is not living the way she wants.
The current situation in theory allows for discrimination.

In other words:
Let A(x) be "There is a possibility of x being discriminated against".
Let B(x) be "x does not like being in a situation in which there is a possibility of being discriminated against"
Let C(x) be "x does not like the current situation"
(A(x) and B(x)) therefore C(x)

B(x) is obvious.
The full statement (A(x) and B(x)) therefore C(x) is true by definition.
So all that matters here is whether A(x) is true.
A(x) appears true based on the legislation, although hasn't been tested yet AFAIK.

It's worth noting that the law states that in addition to the refusing to hire of people a workplace isn't discriminating if

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or
(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

(a) could mean that you could be overlooked for a promotion.
(b) could debatably refer to firing someone or at least preventing them from taking on certain roles.

And yes, for the hundredth time I'm aware this hasn't been tested so far, but "it hasn't happened" and "it won't/can't happen" are different things.

How many times; The law only legalises discrimination at the interview stage, and only when there is a prima facie case that the applicants sexual orientation would:
A) Undermine a religious ethos of an institution(simply being gay in your private life wouldn't suffice for this)

Very debatable, and can only really be decided by a court case setting a precedent.
A catholic institution could easily claim that having an (openly) gay member undermines the religious ethos.

"would be materially different if filled by a person not having that relevant characteristic"(i.e. they would have to prove that being your sexual orientation makes you less qualified)

This doesn't even apply to sexual orientation
In the act section 37 subsection 1 is about religious ethos.
This quote is from subsection 3, which applies to

discrimination on the age ground, the disability ground or the ground of race

Tragedy

Tragedy wrote: »

How many times; The law only legalises discrimination at the interview stage.

That's not a lot better tbh.

A) Undermine a religious ethos of an institution(simply being gay in your private life wouldn't suffice for this)

I read an article in the Irish Times recently about a case in Germany where a man was fired from the church for being gay in his private life.
Only slightly different laws, so it's easy to see the law standing up in court if there ever was a first case in Ireland.

In any case, whether or not it happens to crayolastereo or not, the fact that there is a provision in law for any religious institution to discriminate in such a way is discrimination. It doesn't just apply to gay people, of course. Also, the likelihood of somebody being rejected on the grounds of being gay when they allow many atheist teachers in church-run schools is slim, so we're not arguing with you over whether it will happen or not.

tl;dr All it takes is for one fanatic to be in a position of power in one such institution for a precedent to be set; whichever way the courts decide the case will go.

Tragedy

Pygmalion wrote: »

She doesn't want to be in a situation where she could in theory be discriminated against for her sexual orientation.
Therefore if she is living in a situation in which she can in theory be discriminated against for her sexual orientation she is not living the way she wants.
The current situation in theory allows for discrimination.

In other words:
Let A(x) be "There is a possibility of x being discriminated against".
Let B(x) be "x does not like that a situation in which there is a possibility of being discriminated against"
Let C(x) be "x does not like the current situation"
(A(x) and B(x)) therefore C(x)

Where did possibility enter into it? Or theory? She never mentioned either.
In theory, the government tomorrow could legaise lynchings of lesbians.
Therefore she is now, in theory, living in a situation, where, in theory, there is a possibility that she could be lynched for being a lesbian.

Therefore she can't live her life in this country as it is, in theory, possibly, under threat.

Very debatable, and can only really be decided by a court case setting a precedent.

The fact there hasn't been a court case is ample evidence to be quite honest. This legislation is 12 years old, if there was going to be a court case, it would have happened a long time ago.

A catholic institution could easily claim that having an (openly) gay member undermines the religious ethos.

How could they claim this? I think you're confusing openly gay, with someone who promulgates and promotes homosexuality in others.

They would have to prove the latter as the former would not suffice as a prima facie case for undermining an ethos.

After all, homosexuality is only a sin in the catholic church(although I think leviticus calls it the lowest rung of immorality, it's still 'just a sin like almost anything else free will lets us do), as is being a 'heathen', a divorcee, living with a partner outside marriage, having a child out of wedlock etc - all of which are also covered by this Section and are 'legal' grounds of discrimination.
Not that any of them have been tested!

This doesn't even apply to sexual orientation
In the act section 37 subsection 1 is about religious ethos.
This quote is from subsection 3, which applies to

My mistake, I misread D as being (d) which is someone of differing sexual orientation.

My bad!

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not a lot better tbh.

It isn't, but when it comes to laws - it pays to be clear and precise.

I read an article in the Irish Times recently about a case in Germany where a man was fired from the church for being gay in his private life.
Only slightly different laws, so it's easy to see the law standing up in court if there ever was a first case in Ireland.

Germany is strange, in that I, and people I know would have regarded it as broadly secular and progressive, but in reality - the main political part is a Christian democratic party that while fiscally and economically liberal and forward thinking, when it comes to social issues is rather conservative and this stretches across the society, from legislature to judiciary to bureaucracy.
In short, don't take it as stated that if it happened in Germany it could happen here, we're probably more progressive than them at this stage(in many respects anyway).

In any case, whether or not it happens to crayolastereo or not, the fact that there is a provision in law for any religious institution to discriminate in such a way is discrimination. It doesn't just apply to gay people, of course. Also, the likelihood of somebody being rejected on the grounds of being gay when they allow many atheist teachers in church-run schools is slim, so we're not arguing with you over whether it will happen or not.

As I've already said, I think the section is stupid/useless both from a societal perspective and a legal perspective(completely unworkable). Just like the Blashpemy law

tl;dr All it takes is for one fanatic to be in a position of power in one such institution for a precedent to be set; whichever way the courts decide the case will go.

True, but no need to worry in this case. It would end up in the Supreme Court and be considered unconstitutional(take your pick almost anything under Article 40!).

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

Where did possibility enter into it? Or theory? She never mentioned either.
In theory, the government tomorrow could legaise lynchings of lesbians.

Therefore she is now, in theory, living in a situation, where, in theory, there is a possibility that she could be lynched for being a lesbian.

Therefore she can't live her life in this country as it is, in theory, possibly, under threat.

There's a difference between laws which could in theory be passed and laws which have been passed surprisingly enough.

The government could in theory make murder and rape legal (well, maybe a referendum would be required, but I imagine it's the same for the lesbian lynching), I'm sure you see how this isn't really an issue?
Whereas I'm sure you see how it would be an issue if it ever actually happened?

The fact there hasn't been a court case is ample evidence to be quite honest. This legislation is 12 years old, if there was going to be a court case, it would have happened a long time ago.

The thing about laws is that they don't expire, there's nothing to say that "No-one has been prosecuted in a decade, therefore this law no longer applies".
So far it hasn't happened, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't, as I've said before.

How could they claim this? I think you're confusing openly gay, with someone who promulgates and promotes homosexuality in others.

They would have to prove the latter as the former would not suffice as a prima facie case for undermining an ethos.

Perhaps having someone who openly rejects their beliefs and publicly acts contrary to their teaching would be undermining their ethos?
Seems like it would be.

After all, homosexuality is only a sin in the catholic church(although I think leviticus calls it the lowest rung of immorality), as is being a 'heathen', a divorcee, living with a partner outside marriage, having a child out of wedlock etc - all of which are also covered by this Section and are 'legal' grounds of discrimination.
Not that any of them have been tested!

For all I know they could make the case if they had good enough lawyers and were prepared to deal with the public backlash, you're right, the legislation is very non-specific.
You seem to basing this on a lot of "It's common sense, no judge would allow this", but the judges must faithfully interpret the law as it's written, they may vary in how they interpret ambiguous passages but they can't come out and say "The law forbids this, but clearly the law is wrong and I'm right".

Tragedy

Pygmalion wrote: »

There's a difference between laws which could in theory be passed and laws which have been passed surprisingly enough.

You brought up in theory dude, it swings both ways.

No-one expected this law to be passed and everyone was agape when it was. In theory any law could be passed, and in theory, anyone could be prosecuted/discriminated under it.

Your in theory is simply one step removed from my example, it still relies on 'in theory' to have any relevance.

The government could in theory make murder and rape legal (well, maybe a referendum would be required, but I imagine it's the same for the lesbian lynching), I'm sure you see how this isn't really an issue?
Whereas I'm sure you see how it would be an issue if it ever actually happened?

So by your exact logic above, Section 37 isn't an issue because it's never happened?(Someone being discriminated under it).

The thing about laws is that they don't expire, there's nothing to say that "No-one has been prosecuted in a decade, therefore this law no longer applies".
So far it hasn't happened, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't, as I've said before.

It makes it far less likely. Far, faaaaar less likely.

Perhaps having someone who openly rejects their beliefs and publicly acts contrary to their teaching would be undermining their ethos?
Seems like it would be.

How are they openly and publicly rejecting their beliefs, unless they're having sex in public? Homosexuality, as defined by the bible, is lying with other men. It isn't liking fashion, pink clothes, Glee or any of the other Gay stereotypes there are out there.

Homosexuals who don't commit homosexual acts can receive communion in good conscience. Therefore, only the act of homosexual sex can be construed in any way as undermining the catholic religious ethos. Unless the person in question has sex in public, or tells people they have sex, they're absolutely immune.

For all I know they could make the case if they had good enough lawyers and were prepared to deal with the public backlash, you're right, the legislation is very non-specific.

Make a case based on what?
Do you think a barrister goes to court and says "Judge, this person is openly gay. That undermines my clients religious ethos. No, don't ask how, it just does. We want to discriminate against him. We can? Thanks."?

You seem to basing this on a lot of "It's common sense, no judge would allow this"

I don't base any of this on common sense, I base it on case law from the last 20 years.

but the judges must faithfully interpret the law as it's written

They don't faithfully interpret anything, something we see every year. They create their own interpretation, there is no faithful rendering of whatever is written. Judges are allowed to throw out any case they want, although there could be repurcussions.

they may vary in how they interpret ambiguous passages but they can't come out and say "The law forbids this, but clearly the law is wrong and I'm right".

Well actually, they can and have many many times said the law forbids something, but the law is either untenable, unconstitutional or unworkable. It then gets appealed up the chain if the plaintiff disagrees, and usually ends up in the Supreme Court.

One thing people don't seem to realise is that Judges are individuals, and how they interpret law tends to be individualistic and contrary to how other judges interpret it.

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

You brought up in theory.

So you're saying Section 37 isn't an issue because it's never happened?(Someone being discriminated under it).

I distinguish between something that could only be done by elected officials, requiring a majority vote and making them open to public scrutiny and something which a single employer (or a small, unelected, private group) can decide.
Pretending that the possibility of making assault legal is equivalent to the possibility of someone taking advantage of existing legislation is a stretch even for internet arguments.

It makes it far less likely. Far, faaaaar less likely.

Agreed, and I assume we can agree that 0% and "Far, faaaaar less likely" are not the same thing?

How are they openly and publicly rejecting their beliefs, unless they're having sex in public? Homosexuality, as defined by the bible, is lying with other men. It isn't liking fashion, pink clothes, Glee or any of the other Gay stereotypes there are out there.

Homosexuals who don't commit homosexual acts can receive communion in good conscience. Therefore, only the act of homosexual sex can be construed in any way as undermining the catholic religious ethos. Unless the person in question has sex in public, or tells people they have sex, they're absolutely immune.

"Openly gay" implies that they don't abstain or hide that they have sex.
Admittedly it can't be 100% proven unless you follow them with a video camera, but that's hardly the point.
It being hard to prove something doesn't make it ok to discriminate based on it.

What if a gay staff member casually mentioned something to do with his sex life to other staff or friends/clients, straight people do it all the time without problem, but this could end up opening up the gay man/woman to accusations of undermining the ethos.

Make a case based on what?
Do you think a barrister goes to court and says "Judge, this person is openly gay. That undermines my clients religious ethos. No, don't ask how, it just does. We want to discriminate against him. We can? Thanks."?

Or they could give a list of relevant material from the bible and the church condemning homosexual acts and make a very clear case.

I don't base any of this on common sense, I base it on case law from the last 20 years.

Clearly not decisions based on the legislation in question then, since that hasn't been around that long and you seem to have admitted it hasn't been tested.

They don't faithfully interpret anything, something we see every year. They create their own interpretation, there is no faithful rendering of whatever is written.
Well actually, they can and have many many times. It then gets appealed up the chain, and usually ends up in the Supreme Court.

Ok, judges all the way up the chain sometimes act contrary to how they are supposed to act.
A judge performing his job correctly cannot simply make up law and must interpret the law as it's written.

Tragedy

Pygmalion wrote: »

I distinguish between something that could only be done by elected officials, requiring a majority vote and making them open to public scrutiny and something which a single employer (or a small, unelected, private group) can decide.
Pretending that the possibility of making assault legal is equivalent to the possibility of someone taking advantage of existing legislation is a stretch even for internet arguments.

No, I'm sorry. You went from things that do happen, to things that haven't but in theory could.

There's no going back.

Agreed, and I assume we can agree that 0% and "Far, faaaaar less likely" are not the same thing?

Close enough though!

"Openly gay" implies that they don't abstain or hide that they have sex.

Someone asking you if you have sex in the course of your work and you answering honestly isn't the same as going around telling people you have sex.
It comes back to promulgating and promoting, again.

If I'm openly heterosexual and work as a teacher, I don't tell students that I was banging some hot girl last night. Likewise as a doctor. So no, I disagree.

Admittedly it can't be 100% proven unless you follow them with a video camera, but that's hardly the point.
It being hard to prove something doesn't make it ok to discriminate based on it.

Hard to prove what? Ok to discriminate based on what? I just explained how they can't discriminate and how it's pretty much impossible to.

What if a gay staff member casually mentioned something to do with his sex life to other staff or friends/clients, straight people do it all the time without problem, but this could end up opening up the gay man/woman to accusations of undermining the ethos.

I worked in a hospital, we had a very, very clearcut code on this. People have been censured for talking about sex around colleagues who felt uncomfortable with it and went to HR.
Similarly, men have been prosecuted for sexual harassment for talking about sex around a female colleague.

And God help ANY member of staff who said anything unprofessional within hearing of any patient or visitor.

Or they could give a list of relevant material from the bible and the church condemning homosexual acts and make a very clear case.

Where does undermining come into this? Contrary isn't undermining.
Maybe I should make a little mathsy thing to illustrate it.

Clearly not decisions based on the legislation in question then, since that hasn't been around that long and you seem to have admitted it hasn't been tested.

Eh? I never said it was case law on this decision, what the hell are you trying to be clever about?

Ok, judges all the way up the chain sometimes act contrary to how they are supposed to act.

There is no "how they are supposed to act" for Judges, Judges are above this.

Judges are the ultimate arbiters of law and it's interpretations. The only way to challenge a Judge is to bring the case to a higher court(District > Circuit > High > Supreme > Europe)
I hate arguing anything to do with Law with people who don't know anything about it outside what they read in newspapers and see in tv >.>

A judge performing his job correctly cannot simply make up law and must interpret the law as it's written.

Where did making up law come into it? I bolded interpret for you.

Mod Edit: this post has received a yellow card Warning for the following reason: Breach of Peace.

conmalone

I've not managed to read through every post in the discussion, but wanted to clear up a couple of points.

Gay Doctors Ireland is not a union or a separatist movement - it's a support group for LGBT doctors and medical students. We also run courses for all doctors interested in LGBT health issues and are working with the medical training bodies to have LGBT health modules as core parts of the curricula for undergraduate and GP education. Gay people have specific health needs not often understood or addressed by doctors.

While our main aims are to support our members and to improve the training that all doctors receive, we are also concerned by issues such as the ban on MSM blood donation, recognition of transgendered individuals, issues with employment law, etc. as these impact our members and our patients.

Like many others, I have worked as an out doctor in religious hospitals and have not had any problems. That said, the fact that the law (however theoretical or untested) allows one's sexuality to be used as a reason to fire someone is surely repugnant to human rights, dignity and respect. Gay teachers feel particularly vulnerable with regard to section 37, which is understandable given the direct involvement of religious bodies in the day-to-day running of schools.

As far as I know, there has never been a ruling on Section 37 in the courts; however, that is not to say that it has not had effects on gay employees. Most teachers and a large number of doctors work in religious-run institutions. In theory, we can be refused a job or indeed fired from a long-held position simply because we are L/G/B/T and therefore religious employers may take "action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution" - this is widely understood to include being fired.

Whether or not Section 37 ever results in someone being fired or refused a job is not really the issue - the very fact that legislation was specifically written to allow certain groups to discriminate on the basis of sexuality is not in line with a modern democracy and is an affront to human rights. It is offensive to gay professionals, the LGBT patients they treat, the LGBT students they teach, and all those who work with them and depend on them.

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

No, I'm sorry. You went from things that do happen, to things that haven't but in theory could.

There's no going back.

I went to things that haven't happened but are allowed under current law.
You then jumped to "what if everyone in the dáil went (more?) insane".

Close enough though!

I also hear that breaking the law is only illegal if you get caught.

Someone asking you if you have sex in the course of your work and you answering honestly isn't the same as going around telling people you have sex.
If I'm openly heterosexual and work as a teacher, I don't tell students that I was banging some hot girl last night. Likewise as a doctor. So no, I disagree.

If someone were to find out somehow that you were sexually active though (perhaps a co-worker/boss knows your partner IRL or has mutual friends) it would should have no effect on your work.

It comes back to promulgating and promoting, again.

Undermining the ethos isn't very well defined though, openly contradicting or rejecting the teachings of the church could be seen as doing this.
Even if you were pretending to be celibate (explicitly or implicitly) there are situations in which you may have to choose between lying and contradicting the teachings of whatever group's ethos.
Maybe they're rare, but that's not the point

Hard to prove what? Ok to discriminate based on what? I just explained how they can't discriminate and how it's pretty much impossible to.

Grand, people can feel safe in their beds at night now that it's "pretty much" impossible to legally discriminate against them.

I worked in a hospital, we had a very, very clearcut code on this. People have been censured for talking about sex around colleagues who felt uncomfortable with it and went to HR.
Similarly, men have been prosecuted for sexual harassment for talking about sex around a female colleague.

And God help ANY member of staff who said anything unprofessional within hearing of any patient or visitor.

And god help anyone sharing mutual friends with their boss or co-worker.

Where does undermining come into this? Contrary isn't undermining.
Maybe I should make a little mathsy thing to illustrate it.

I believe I've partially addressed this above, but "Even if you were pretending to be celibate (explicitly or implicitly) there are situations in which you may have to choose between lying and contradicting the teachings of whatever group's ethos."
Perhaps just "I refuse to speak about that" could work, but IMO a policy of "If you're gay don't ever give an opinion on homosexuality, or pretend to disapprove" isn't really acceptable in this day in age.

Eh? I never said it was case law on this decision, what the hell are you trying to be clever about?

You didn't, but unless the other laws explicitly take precedence over this one it's not entirely clear how they're relevant.

There is no "how they are supposed to act" for Judges, Judges are above this.

Are you saying judges are free to disregard written law?
I know I'm going to be accused of putting words in your mouth, which is why I framed it as a question, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by it.

I said a judge is supposed to interpret the laws passed and not make laws up themselves, is this not how it works?

I hate arguing anything to do with Law with people who don't know anything outside newspapers and tv >.>

So this is the point we're supposed to start attacking each other personally?

Where did making up law come into it? I bolded interpret for you.

I posted

they can't come out and say "The law forbids this, but clearly the law is wrong and I'm right".

which is going further than "interpreting" law, and is actually rejecting it.
You responded with

Well actually, they can and have many many times

You did edit in a clarification of what you meant but I had responded before you did and only noticed it now.

Pygmalion

Actually, disregard that, Tragedy knows his stuff better than I.

My points were all (or at least mostly) invalid and I was clearly writing from a very biased position.
There really isn't anything wrong with the legislation, if anything it's a good thing as it helps catholic institutions maintain their ethos in a society which isn't always respectful of them.
To insist that institutions must not discriminate based on religion or belief spits in the face of those who wrote our constitution and ran our country for many years, fact is the majority of the country is still catholic and as such, in a democracy, must keep control over public institutions.

Jackobyte

DingosAteMyBaby wrote: »

I also support the clamp down the derogatory uses of the word "gay" etc. While they may be used innocently, the negative connotations associated with them can have quite an adverse affect on young people struggling with their sexuality.

I'm guilty of this a lot. I don't know why I use it in such a sense seeing as I've gone through two periods of questioning my sexuality before but I still use it and don't think anything of it.

This thread moves way too fast but I will read it, just not right now. I'll comment on some other posts tomorrow.