Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

k1lk1 t1_it6xyc8 wrote

This is another cool boutique program for a special interest group with social cachet!

Its great we do these rather than repair roads, make MTA more reliable, and address trash and noise issues

7

TeamMisha t1_it88pq7 wrote

Idk, it seems nice. LGBT people aging right now, who lived through Stonewall and oppression, or still alive with HIV, didn't live such a great life. I guess it was okay to give boomers unlimited pensions and reap the benefits of the age of excess but it's bad to let HIV elders die with dignity or make it easier for poor old people to access meals. Also what exactly does the state government have to do with NYC trash handling?

11

sysyphusishappy t1_it8x0mh wrote

Do you think it's legal under the civil rights act of 1964 for the government to distribute resources differently based on immutable identity? The answer is yes, but does it follow the spirit of that law and what precedent does it set?

−5

Unable-Ad3852 t1_it6wxeg wrote

This is not fair and a spit in the face for all other who work and pay in the system. What was wrong with income alone to qualify you for services? There's a ton of rich folks that will now benefit just because they now claim to be alphabet.

1

TeamMisha t1_it88auh wrote

Can you read the article, it's literally right here:

>LGBTQ+ people in New York who suffer disproportionately from poverty and isolation now have access to more services.

If you have millions in your retirement account this is not gonna affect you, this is for poor people and those with HIV. If I read this right, it just means income alone is not used to determine need (and that makes sense, income level alone is not the full indication of who may need services). No this is not opening the flood gates for wealthy retirees to state benefits just by claiming they are gay.

9

Unable-Ad3852 t1_it8lhxf wrote

> If I read this right, it just means income alone is not used to determine need..

Either way this is wrong and that's the problem. I don't have millions to retire and wouldn't be this but hurt if i did. The way in which this is phrased is like any other handout NY does. We have enough to serve 10000 people and we go by income in ascending order. By changing the rules someone with more income can jump in line to someone with less if they declare LGBTQ+. It doesn't specify what rules they apply now nor how much more income is the cutoff. They just let you know that because some poor people are LGBTQ+ they will discriminate against anyone who isn't and we should be ok with it because of equity.

3