("Reverse") Discrimination

[Kalahari Inkantation]

[spoiler]"reverse discrimination" is a fucking retarded, useless, absolutely senseless and redundant term that i despise because all discrimination is exactly the same -- it is to treat a group of people differently based on a trait considered arbitrary

however it is unfortunately a term commonly used to describe the main topic of this thread, hence the title [/spoiler]

This is relatively old news, but I felt it needed to be addressed and could still lead to some interesting discussion.  Recently, a dispute between a "gay softball league" and five of its members outed as "non-gay" (two of whom were bisexual, the other three of whom were heterosexual) resulted in three heterosexuals being expelled from the league -- a decision supported by a federal court.

(Source: The New York Times)

Now I can't say I endorse discrimination of any kind, but if it must exist, it should be kept at a private level.  My major issue here is that a public, federal court has backed the league's actions -- they are allowed to limit the number of heterosexuals allowed into their league.

This isn't an isolated case; the Boy Scouts are allowed to deny homosexuals membership, another discriminatory action federal courts have supported -- according to them, the Constitution allows them the right to discriminate against homosexuals.  (I guess the idiotic logic behind the softball league's decision was something along the lines of "They discriminate against us, why can't we do the same?", but that foolish line of thinking is guaranteed to only make matters worse.)

What if we were Constitutionally allowed to limit the numbers of certain ethnicities in particular settings?  After all, ethnicity, like sexuality, is an arbitrary trait that cannot be chosen, and therefore both are civil rights issues...
Oh wait, we already do try to skew ethnic and gender numbers -- affirmative action, quotas, certain scholarships and the like are government-supported programs which exist to promote "diversity" rather than allowing the person best fit for the position (whether for a job, college/university, sports team, Boy Scouts-like club, etc.) to obtain it.  Programs like these, too, can only ever make matters worse.

In the western world today, we are raised to treat race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. as "arbitrary traits".  My question is, how could that be possible if the government itself is giving us messages as mixed as these?  I see two types of discrimination here, yet the governments of western countries generally claim to be against all discrimination.

Do you agree that discrimination -- whether it's intended to "help" (but really doesn't) as in the case of affirmative action and quotas, whether it's intended to be "fair" as in the case of the softball league, or whether it's purely intended to hurt as in the case of the Boy Scouts -- should ever be allowed in any cases?  Why or why not?

[spoiler]tl;dr [/spoiler]

[bluaki]

This is the first time I've heard of gay sports leagues. Seems like a silly idea that even implies that homosexuals can't fit in the normal league and need a separate one

A couple justifiable examples of discrimination in either direction I can think of would be church staff being required to follow the same religion as the church itself (though with the ridiculous influence many churches have, even that could be questionable) and an actor being required to match a character's race/gender

I mostly dislike affirmative action discrimination. When the previously-discriminated group receives unnecessary bonuses and gifts, other groups would easily become bitter. Particularly for race, when universities are required to accept a forcibly "diverse" population, admission standards for the applicable groups tend to be lowered which can easily lead to the most unqualified students being the "minority" groups. I imagine both instances would raise personal discrimination in addition to encouraging the culture to think of people with those traits as a different group.

Though discrimination either way for race and sexual orientation are fairly obvious and simple to consider wrong, gender is a relatively complex one; the sex discrimination/segregation label could be put on such things as athletic teams, boy/girl scouts, fraternities/sororities, housing, and even restrooms/changing rooms
But of course I have personal reasons for wanting impossibly reduced gender segregation

[Kalahari Inkantation]

This is the first time I've heard of gay sports leagues. Seems like a silly idea that even implies that homosexuals can't fit in the normal league and need a separate one

honestly

one would think that a group of people experiencing what is arguably the most severe discrimination in modern times would try not to treat others the same way

It really does imply that homosexuals can't function on normal sports teams.  And if they can't function in "normal" society, aren't they then truly different from heterosexuals?  And if that is true, doesn't that mean that they can be rightfully discriminated against?

it doesn't make any sense lol, it's like nobody puts even an ounce of thought into doing things like this

It's for this very reason that I don't think "[insert ethnic group/sexuality/gender/etc.] Club" - like groups should exist, nor do I think "[insert ethnic group/sexuality/gender/etc.] Entertainment Television" and the like should exist.  They all imply that something about the particular group -- aside from an arbitrary trait -- is different about them, thus there is a reason for them to be discriminated against.  And yet so few people actually realize that.

A couple justifiable examples of discrimination in either direction I can think of would be church staff being required to follow the same religion as the church itself (though with the ridiculous influence many churches have, even that could be questionable) and an actor being required to match a character's race/gender

i agree -- but things like those aren't (and can't) be supported by the federal government as churches and film studios are private entities, whereas this "league", affirmative action, quotas, etc. are all publicly backed by the federal government

honestly i'm not even sure i would consider it discrimination in those cases because in those situations, religious, ethnic, etc. traits aren't really arbitrary

I mostly dislike affirmative action discrimination. When the previously-discriminated group receives unnecessary bonuses and gifts, other groups would easily become bitter. Particularly for race, when universities are required to accept a forcibly "diverse" population, admission standards for the applicable groups tend to be lowered which can easily lead to the most unqualified students being the "minority" groups. I imagine both instances would raise personal discrimination in addition to encouraging the culture to think of people with those traits as a different group.

yes

YES

honestly why should a school for example even have standards if certain people are allowed entry if they don't meet said standards

you're right, all that could ever accomplish is creating a difference in the average between group X and group Y -- thus promoting the idea that that the two groups are different

it does far, far, far more harm than good

And that problem wouldn't exist if everyone regardless of arbitrary traits was forced to meet the exact standards.  That's the only thing that could possibly help to truly reduce discrimination.

why do so few people seem to understand this :'(

[applesauce]

I feel like people should pretty much be allowed to do whatever they want in regards to discrimination. If all softball team wants to be all gay, if an emigre wants to hire only women (or men) or anything like that, it should totally be up to them. I don't support the government being discriminatory at all, including the affirmative action stuff. A lot of the time I see things where companies working on government contracts are required to have like 25% female or 40% minority workers....why?

Also, the examples you citied of the federal courts getting involved with the softball league and the boyscouts is nit the federal government getting involved in discrimination, it's just them supporting the rights of the group to do what they want, which is really the government taking a neutral stance.

I like the idea of private people deciding their own stuff. If that softball league wants to through out heterosexuals and the boyscouts wants to throw out homosexuals and target wants to hire disabled people as 10% of their employees, then good for softball, boyscouts, and target. Let people do what they fucking want.

[Daddy]

The idea behind gay sports teams is because insecure heterosexuals wouldn't feel comfortable changing with a homosexual or being on the same team as one.

[Hiro]

Well I mean, the team defines themselves on their homosexuality. If some of the members are straight, then the team is no longer a homosexual team. If the majority of team members feel they should kick the straight members out for violating that definition, then it makes sense. There is reverse discrimination, but I don't really feel this is it. If you went to a restaurant that required a tie and you didn't have a tie on, then that's the rule they established and you have every right to leave.
Now if this were just a normal baseball team that happened to have a lot of homosexuals on it and they kicked out the straight members, that would be discrimination.