Wouldn't you agree something similar applies to workplace discrimination? For example, I would never be willing to work with someone who discriminates against gays. However it is only due to my own economic circumstances that I'm able to act based on that preference. One could as well conclude that the root of the problem is people having to tolerate unfavorable conditions just to get by, and that addressing the issue of discrimination is just a temporary solution. I live in Panama not in the U.S.
I struggle to understand people's language quite often. For example, you say that you won't work with people who discriminate against gay people. Why caveat that? Is it that you're happy to work with people who discriminate against other criteria other than sexual orientation?
I usually find this language reflects how a person thinks, eg. I am gay; therefore, I only care about discrimination against gays.
There is no benefit in your caveat (as far as I can see). It does, however, open up a myriad of other issues. Eg. To discriminate is to choose. Also, one of my favourite chestnuts: positive discrimination is negative discrimination against others. Eg. "I must hire someone who is ____" is the same as "I won't hire someone who isn't _____ regardless of experience, certification". This logic has always baffled me.
