Crew Wanted: Looking for gay couple to crew catamaran

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by matt-jett

Looking for a gay younger couple to crew on a new 50+ catamaran being delivered this fall. Boat will be delivered to southern France and additional work done. Then sails in the Mediterranean working bugs out. Then onto the Canary Islands awaiting the jump to the Caribbean. The boat will be making a circumnavigation around the world seasonally. If interested or questions please write.

Why younger? And younger than who? Than the catamaran? That seems to be over 50? (BTW, Same hiring rules governing sexual orientation also apply to age.&#128513

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Either it's OK to discriminate or it's not., ,

No, it's not. It is absolutely OK to discriminate in certain situations, and this is one of them. There are many other such situations.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, it's not. It is absolutely OK to discriminate in certain situations, and this is one of them. There are many other such situations.

Dockhead, you seem to have fallen into one of those slippery-slope traps. There is a crazy-haired law professor I know who gets giddy when this happens. With a weird little grin, right about now he would say:
"Ah, this sounds about right. Seem quite fair to me...but...please tell me this... Exactly WHO gets to decide WHICH situations fall into this convenient category you describe with the label 'OK'"?

[Tricolor]

Interesting topic, just thinking what the reactions would have been when the OP had asked for "no gays"

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by cyan

Dockhead, you seem to have fallen into one of those slippery-slope traps. There is a crazy-haired law professor I know who gets giddy when this happens. With a weird little grin, right about now he would say:
"Ah, this sounds about right. Seem quite fair to me...but...please tell me this... Exactly WHO gets to decide WHICH situations fall into this convenient category you describe with the label 'OK'"?

It's a question of public policy, and every society has its own way of formulating this policy. We (in the U.S.) do it through a combination of legislation and Constitutional interpretation. It's not entirely democratic, but we muddle through. So the answer to your question -- WHO gets decide, is the people, at least, those people who care enough to shake up their legislators on issues which are important to them. Then laws get passed, and it gets decided when discrimination is allowed, and when it's not. Sometimes the courts take it out of our hands (something I am deeply opposed to as being fundamentally un-democratic), but they are also subject to being changed, when it becomes a political issue.

But that's really beside the point -- all I was saying is that to say "either all discrimination is wrong, or none of it is" is simplistic and wrong. That's never been the case, anywhere.

[a64pilot]

Guy’s
Its a catch 22,let it go.

[nelly]

Not saying discrimination in the way OP stated is OK, but certainly some discrimination is actually mutually beneficial for both parties.

For example, if I said "We don't want any Liberals/Conservatives on this boat. We're going to be talking about [some Liberal/Conservative thing] a lot and it won't vibe well. Sorry." this would serve arguably as much for my benefit as yours and there is nothing wrong with this type of discrimination.

A fairly neutral framing. More extreme would be "No ****ing white supremacists" or whatever. Usually you don't have to specify this, but you know.

Anyway, I feel there is nothing wrong with asking for gay crewmates. Let's give the OP the benefit of the doubt: maybe they are a gay couple and would rather sail with their own community than random people who have a chance of just not liking gay people.

No, would not be cool to say "white people only, that's my community" for various reasons: how often are white people persecuted?

In the real world these things matter, and the likelihood of spending a few months on a boat with someone who detests you as a person is much higher if you're gay than if you're a straight person, and depending on where in the world you're coming from, that chance may be a coin flip...

Though I feel a better way for OP to phrase this would have been to explain their situation. Would cut out this discussion

[sagablu]

The OP asked for a crew, what he got instead was a lot of opinion and discussion. Any takers? I would go but my girlfriend would be annoyed I am taking a trip without her.

[GrowleyMonster]

Doesn't matter who is persecuted and who is minority. I think any U.S. lawyer worth his salt would opine that in this situation it is perfectly legal to select or dismiss any applicant for any arbitrary reason. This is a position for two people only, and not a position with any company or entity with any government contracts or providing any public services. Furthermore, it is not even stated that this is a paid position. EOC (Equal Opportunity Crewing) is absolutely 100% optional. The OP should feel free to accept any person or persons that he believes would be a good fit for the boat and its intended itinerary. If I were crewing my hypothetical large motor yacht for a summer of messing about on Lake Pontchartrain with occasional jaunts to Pensacola or Bahamas or Mexico, I would not be a bit hesitant to advertise for young attractive "boat bunnies" as crew. If I cared one way or the other about race, I would certainly specify the flavor I preferred. I might even specify a particular body type or actual max/min measurements. My boat, my choice. Or if I were crewing my hypothetical passagemaking classic schooner for a circumnavigation, I might want to limit applicants to first of all experienced sailors, persons not disabled, native English speakers, and in verifiable good health, and not of any extreme political or religious persuasion. And probably NOT gay though exceptions might be possible. My boat, my preference, my pick of the litter. Even if it was actual paid employment. We aren't talking about a company. We are talking about two or a few positions on a private yacht. My needs and desires would be more relevant than any need to accomodate the public and cater to minorities OR majorities.


I say if the OP wants crew and will only accept a young gay couple, then it is perfectly okay from both a legal and moral view. As for WHY he wants a young gay couple, I guess it is his business and nobody else's.


In other more liberal countries of course, it MIGHT be illegal. Then again, in some other countries it is illegal to even BE gay in the first place. My comments above apply to U.S. registered vessels and crew employment or acceptance in the U.S.

[sailorboy1]

post #40 and I think there there are maybe 2 on topic posts counting post #1

why is this a argument/discussion on boating forum, other than for the internet entertainment

[cyan]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

No, would not be cool to say "white people only, that's my community" for various reasons: how often are white people persecuted?

Oops.
Another one falls down the slippery slope.
Your logic comes from good intentions, well done. However this same logic may have a very fatal flaw.

At it's core, the argument seeks to define some rules that would bring about fair play. One side, the majority, has the advantage of not being persecuted very much. The other side, the minority, has the disadvantage of suffering much more persecution. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, we could change the rule that prohibits ALL persecution, because that one group receives more of it than the other group. The new rule ALLOWS persecution of the majority.

There.
Fixed.
"Public Policy" now allows one group to receive bad stuff because there was a different group that was getting way too much of the bad stuff before.
Fair play restored.
Right?

[nelly]

Originally Posted by cyan

Oops.
Another one falls down the slippery slope.
Your logic comes from good intentions, well done. However this same logic may have a very fatal flaw.

At it's core, the argument seeks to define some rules that would bring about fair play. One side, the majority, has the advantage of not being persecuted very much. The other side, the minority, has the disadvantage of suffering much more persecution. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, we could change the rule that prohibits ALL persecution, because that one group receives more of it than the other group. The new rule ALLOWS persecution of the majority.

There.
Fixed.
"Public Policy" now allows one group to receive bad stuff because there was a different group that was getting way too much of the bad stuff before.
Fair play restored.
Right?

I don't think this is a slippery slope to simply remind people we live in a reality where gay people are persecuted and straight people are not.

> Therefore, in the interest of fairness, we could change the rule that prohibits ALL persecution, because that one group receives more of it than the other group. The new rule ALLOWS persecution of the majority.

I never advocated for persecution of the majority. My argument stands on the fact that as you imply there is a difference of persecution here from one group to the other.

What wolves should we allow in our boats?

I'm not saying straight people are wolves: I'm saying in a perfect world, yes, we'd want no persecution. However, that's not the world we live in, and in this world there is a difference (because of history) of a gay person saying "no straight people" and a straight person saying "no gays".

Is it right? Is it good? No, but there is a difference.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by cyan

. . . At it's core, the argument seeks to define some rules that would bring about fair play. One side, the majority, has the advantage of not being persecuted very much. The other side, the minority, has the disadvantage of suffering much more persecution. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, we could change the rule that prohibits ALL persecution, because that one group receives more of it than the other group. The new rule ALLOWS persecution of the majority. . . .

The word "persecution" is out of place here (and it's inflammatory). We're not talking about persecution; we're talking about discrimination. Two different things.

If you fix that, then what you have written is a coherent argument, and certainly wise men may disagree about this. An easy way to deal with such an issue would be to outlaw ALL discrimination. It might be a good rule; write your Congressman. But there has never been such a rule, to be changed ("we could change the rule") -- there is and never has been any such rule. Whether to do it this way, or that way -- that is, what the rule OUGHT to be -- is a complex issue of public policy which is surely beyond the reasonable scope of this thread. What the rule IS, is that there is no law against advertising specifically for gay crew, and this forum has no rule against it.

What this forum has a rule against is anything which is a breach of good manners -- the "be nice rule".

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Nobody's fighting, and I don't think anyone was offended. If someone needs crew and would be more comfortable if that crew was gay, that's perfectly OK on here, and you can say so. Heterosexual people are in the majority, have not suffered discrimination or exclusion because of their sexuality, and it is permissible to assume that they won't be offended by such an ad. If someone needs crew and would be more comfortable if that crew were NOT gay, then of course that's also OK, but you have to be careful what you say, because gay people are a minority who have suffered discrimination and exclusion. Some people would call that "political correctness" (something which in its true form I personally abhor) but in this case, it is just elementary good manners. It is not a symmetrical situation, because hetero and homo people do not experience the same degree of acceptance in our society, and those of us in the privileged majority need to show some consideration to those who have not enjoyed the same degree of acceptance.

At least, that's the way my grandmother would have explained the rules of decent, polite society, and it still sounds right to me today. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's not a symmetrical situation at all, so the fact a hetero might be "villified" for specifying "no gays" is not relevant to whether a homo might specify the opposite.

If for no other reason that he is saving the time and trouble of the 90% or whatever of sailors who are straight, who would be wasting their time applying for this position, only to be refused for unclear reasons after the information about the applicant's sexual orientation has been teased out somehow.

The opposite is not true, because even an intolerant hetero boat owner, will not get 90% unsuitable candidates with an ad which doesn't say anything about sexual orientation.

I have had a lot of volunteer crew on my boat over the years, many of them met anonymously through Crewseekers and the like. Naturally a few of them have been gay. It has distressed me to see the extent to which the homosexuals among these crews -- without any single exception -- have felt it necessary to conceal their sexual orientation. This is not good. We should be more tolerant and accepting. But in cases like this, we should also have some understanding of the fear of intolerance. It is well founded, unfortunately.

That's the other reason why someone might naturally specify that the crew should be gay or at least be very open from the beginning that the owner is -- it could be a very rude experience to find yourself in the close company of someone who violently opposes your sexual preference.

Agree and agree. Your grandmother (and you by extension) was a wise and compassionate person. Thumbs up to you.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

If it's paid crew then stating a sexual orientation preference might be illegal depending on the country.

Discrimination for employment on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in the UK (Equality Act of 2010), but it is not illegal in the U.S. in most cases. There has been a case finding that such discrimination is covered by the Civil Rights Act, but this is a stretch which is opposed by the DOJ. There is another case winding its way through the court system which may decide the issue once and for all. 12 states prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, but the rest do not.

Affirmative action (which is another kind of discrimination) is not illegal in most cases, and is legally required in some cases.

But as others have said -- this being a non-paid position, none of these rules apply.

Off topic trivia: the man who taught me my first Con Law class was later the actual named respondent (as Dean of the U. of Michigan Law School) in the landmark Supreme Court case which upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action (i.e., reverse discrimination).