What Would You Do?
You are an Atlanta police officer having a discussion with your partner, who supports the homosexual candidate. In explaining his reasoning, he cites 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 he believes sexuality is covered under gender. He mentions that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allows for damages being awarded to those whose rights had been violated through discrimination. He states 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 homosexual officer.
You counter 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. You also note the importance of connecting with the population on a one-to-one basis, and that it was not discrimination to believe that heterosexual officers are better in cases like this; it is only discrimination if the homosexual officer wasn't given an equal chance to apply. Additionally, you state 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 heterosexual officer, or do you cast your vote with your partner for the homosexual 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 homosexual candidate. In explaining his reasoning, he cites 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 he believes sexuality is covered under gender. He mentions that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 allows for damages being awarded to those whose rights had been violated through discrimination. He states 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 homosexual officer.
You counter 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. You also note the importance of connecting with the population on a one-to-one basis, and that it was not discrimination to believe that heterosexual officers are better in cases like this; it is only discrimination if the homosexual officer wasn't given an equal chance to apply. Additionally, you state 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 heterosexual officer, or do you cast your vote with your partner for the homosexual officer?