What Would You Do?
You are an Atlanta police officer having a discussion with your partner, who supports the heterosexual candidate. In explaining your reasoning, you cite the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, both of which guarantee equal opportunity for all, regardless of race or gender and that you believe sexuality is covered under gender. You mention that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allows for damages being awarded to those whose rights had been violated through discrimination. You state that there should be no de facto discrimination in this situation because the duties outlined in the job description can clearly be met by either a heterosexual or a homosexual officer.
Your partner counters with an agreement that opportunity should be guaranteed for all, and in this case, opportunity was being guaranteed to both-because of the voting procedures. Your partner also notes the importance of connecting with the population on a one-to-one basis, and that it was not discrimination to believe that heterosexuals are better in cases like this; it is only discrimination if the homosexual officer wasn't given an equal chance to apply. Additionally, you partner states that neither officer's rights were being violated through a fair vote and that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not apply to government agencies like the police force. After several more days of department-wide discussion, the police chief asks all personnel to cast their votes.
-Do you maintain your original position and vote for the homosexual officer, or do you cast your vote with your partner for the heterosexual officer?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of What Would You Do?
You are an Atlanta police officer having a discussion with your partner, who supports the heterosexual candidate. In explaining your reasoning, you cite the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, both of which guarantee equal opportunity for all, regardless of race or gender and that you believe sexuality is covered under gender. You mention that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allows for damages being awarded to those whose rights had been violated through discrimination. You state that there should be no de facto discrimination in this situation because the duties outlined in the job description can clearly be met by either a heterosexual or a homosexual officer.
Your partner counters with an agreement that opportunity should be guaranteed for all, and in this case, opportunity was being guaranteed to both-because of the voting procedures. Your partner also notes the importance of connecting with the population on a one-to-one basis, and that it was not discrimination to believe that heterosexuals are better in cases like this; it is only discrimination if the homosexual officer wasn't given an equal chance to apply. Additionally, you partner states that neither officer's rights were being violated through a fair vote and that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not apply to government agencies like the police force. After several more days of department-wide discussion, the police chief asks all personnel to cast their votes.
-Do you maintain your original position and vote for the homosexual officer, or do you cast your vote with your partner for the heterosexual officer?