Oh Harry!

[bytebear]

We don't need laws to justify our worth. No one can legislate that someone like you.

I am reminded that several years ago a popular restaurant chain made an edict to fire all gay employees. Well, one of their predominant chefs was a gay woman. They essentially made an exception for her, presumably because she was worth more as an employee and I suspect because they knew her personally. She resigned claiming she was not special enough to be exempt from their decision. They changed their policy.

And really this is the key to discrimination. It's not laws that make people like you. It's your individual worth and bottom line, it's about accommodating those you associate with (both customers and employees).

The civil rights movement started with a boycott of the bus system. It had an effect. It elevated to "feel good" laws, but there was no need. In fact, I think it just pushes discrimination under the radar, and makes people more complacent to prejudice. If the law doesn't tell me I can't then I guess I can.

We need to become a society that doesn't need a government to tell us how to be kind and to whom. We need to simply be kind.

[LittleWyvern]

I read an article citing a poll that revealed a majority thought such a law existed already.

It can be confusing, because existing laws regarding employment discrimination can vary from state to state and even (in the case of Utah) from county to county. This map shows what states have which laws:

Purple means that it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity for general employment, and dark blue means that it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation only. The lighter colors means that it's illegal to discriminate for those categories for public employment only, not private employment (magenta for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, cyan for discrimination based on sexual orientation only). Gray means that it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity for general employment. Using this color scheme, ENDA corresponds to purple.

We need to simply be kind.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

[Soulsearcher]

And, for SS: as a libertarian, my answer is "yes". I am free to negotiate a contract preventing that kind of thing at hiring, and seek remedy through the courts if it's violated. And given the current bureaucratic structure, he'd have to pay my unemployment anyways. If my boss wants to use my religion as an excuse to pay me to do no work for him for a few months while I find another job, I'm not going to complain.

See and i'm guessing that the differences in our countries is where this gets me confused. I guess i first off wonder if the employer wouldn't wonder why you were trying to negotiate over this and just not hire you in the first place seeing this as a red flag on sexual orientation. Second our unemployment might work different. we work, a % is taken off our check and put in a pot. If we lose our job due to being laid off or certain types of termination we get unemployment till our contributions run out. So if I'm fired because I'm gay, it doesn't bother or hurt my employer being they have pretty much nothing to do with my unemployment except making sure it's taken off my pay check. So I'm still not getting income, and don't qualify for unemployment, but i have no recourse because my employer has broken no laws.( i work in a province with out the equal protection laws, but usually work for big enough companies that i don't have to worry, my new company actually makes a huge thing out of accepting every one:) )

[bytebear]

I believe in regional norms not national ones. When we decide that X is good for everyone then someone is going to be unhappy. With regional laws, one can do one of two things: 1. influence their region or 2. move to a region that better accepts their ideals. As corporations become national and international, they generally do what's best for them overall, so in today's climate of gay rights it makes sense for them to be inclusive. But that wasn't so even 30 years ago, let alone 50, 80 or 100 years ago.

Even today, international companies do odd things to accommodate their clients. I work for a company that does quite a lot of business in the Middle East. We cannot mention Israel to the point of having to remove it from maps and documentation. That's just what we have to do. Are we discriminating against Jews? Probably. Should we lose that right, and have to forfeit all business with the Middle East? Should we be forced to make Muslims and Jews work together in our corporation? Trust me. It won't happen. It's simply better to work around the issue than try to "resolve" it through some goverment edict.

I also thing it's important that even though today we think X is good, there will come a time when someone in charge thinks X is bad, and since we have given all power to the central authority, they can eliminate X from society.

Edited November 10, 2013 by bytebear

[Just_A_Guy]

See and i'm guessing that the differences in our countries is where this gets me confused. I guess i first off wonder if the employer wouldn't wonder why you were trying to negotiate over this and just not hire you in the first place seeing this as a red flag on sexual orientation.

Depends on negotiating strategy - could be as simple as "excuse me, but I want my contract to state very clearly what the grounds for termination will be". And if the interview process is going so well that the employer has decided he needs YOU, your bargaining position to get him to go along with things he might not otherwise has just gone up (see Bytebear's anecdote about the chef).

Second our unemployment might work different. we work, a % is taken off our check and put in a pot. If we lose our job due to being laid off or certain types of termination we get unemployment till our contributions run out. So if I'm fired because I'm gay, it doesn't bother or hurt my employer being they have pretty much nothing to do with my unemployment except making sure it's taken off my pay check. So I'm still not getting income, and don't qualify for unemployment, but i have no recourse because my employer has broken no laws.( i work in a province with out the equal protection laws, but usually work for big enough companies that i don't have to worry, my new company actually makes a huge thing out of accepting every one:) )

I could be misunderstanding, but I think it's different in the US and that the employer keeps paying some government entity if a successful unemployment claim is filed. I don't have legal background with this particular issue; but our firm had a clerk leave in a huff about a year ago and there was a big argument before the Labor Commission about whether she had quit or been fired. I had the distinct impression that my boss had a financial stake in the outcome.

Edit: I did some checking, and Utah actually follows the Canadian system--with a twist. An employer's contribution amount is determined by how many people previously filed for unemployment claims after leaving that particular firm.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[bytebear]

If you quit you have no claim. If you are fired, you do. Unemployment benefits only come from those who are fired, and even then it has to be without cause, although most companies won't fight it, since it's really hard to prove one HAD to be fired because of their personal behavior.

[Soulsearcher]

I believe in regional norms not national ones. When we decide that X is good for everyone then someone is going to be unhappy. With regional laws, one can do one of two things: 1. influence their region or 2. move to a region that better accepts their ideals. As corporations become national and international, they generally do what's best for them overall, so in today's climate of gay rights it makes sense for them to be inclusive. But that wasn't so even 30 years ago, let alone 50, 80 or 100 years ago.

Even today, international companies do odd things to accommodate their clients. I work for a company that does quite a lot of business in the Middle East. We cannot mention Israel to the point of having to remove it from maps and documentation. That's just what we have to do. Are we discriminating against Jews? Probably. Should we lose that right, and have to forfeit all business with the Middle East? Should we be forced to make Muslims and Jews work together in our corporation? Trust me. It won't happen. It's simply better to work around the issue than try to "resolve" it through some goverment edict.

I also thing it's important that even though today we think X is good, there will come a time when someone in charge thinks X is bad, and since we have given all power to the central authority, they can eliminate X from society.

So i guess the question i have is, does you company screen all applicants for Their religious faith and refuse to hire Jews completely? If not and the company employs some jewish people are they terminated right away if it becomes known they are jewish, or are they just expected to be able to read situations and know when it's appropriate or not to make it known?

And we also have seen that people do want the government to give protections to x at all cost. Again as much as most people here might disagree, the level of protection for religion is huge, and yet people who are religious tend to kinda gloss over it when they say others shouldn't be protected, or things are going too far. When it comes down to it belonging to a religion is a choice, yet the institutions in america are exempt from hate speech , exempt from taxes, many laws exempt them from being bound by them so as not to trample religious freedoms. I do get it's a constitutional thing, but don't get why people who cry at any hint of this being even hypothetically challenged don't see value in other groups seeking even a fraction of such protections. Look at all the posts raving and ranting about "threats to religious freedom" and really ask, how many groups are given nearly as much for making a choice? ( i'm not saying religious freedoms aren't important, just saying i sometimes think they are taken for granted and people have come to a certain level of entitlement and comfort while forgetting where they'd be with out them and maybe thinking where are others are without any protections)

[Just_A_Guy]

Again as much as most people here might disagree, the level of protection for religion is huge, and yet people who are religious tend to kinda gloss over it when they say others shouldn't be protected, or things are going too far.

Elaine Huguenin would disagree.

When it comes down to it belonging to a religion is a choice, yet the institutions in america are exempt from hate speech,

I'm not aware of any religious exemption to hate speech under American law. However, "hate speech" may be defined differently here. "Hate speech" isn't speech against a particular group that makes someone uncomfortable or hurts someone's feelings; it's speech against a particular group that is intended to, and likely to, incite lawless action. (Brandenburg v. Ohio) The reason "Gays are going to hell" isn't hate speech is not that it's religious in nature; it's that it isn't calculated or likely to cause an illegal action against a gay person. If, on the other hand, I say "there's a gay person and y'all should send him to hell right now"--that's basically inciting murder, and it's hate speech regardless of religious context.

exempt from taxes,

Not due to our first amendment or any other part of our constitution; it's a tax policy decision Congress has made about all nonprofits. As a religious person, I happen to like it. As a libertarian, I can live with it disappearing so long as secular nonprofits are treated similarly.

I do get it's a constitutional thing, but don't get why people who cry at any hint of this being even hypothetically challenged don't see value in other groups seeking even a fraction of such protections.

They do. As I've pointed out, the hate speech and tax protections American churches enjoy are shared with their secular equivalents. We also share protected status under the civil rights act with racial and gender classes (and atheists), the elderly, and the disabled. And as I've indicated, I'd be willing to live without it (I suppose that isn't a terribly courageous decision for a Mormon in Utah to take; but FWIW I grew up in California).

Look at all the posts raving and ranting about "threats to religious freedom" and really ask, how many groups are given nearly as much for making a choice?

Can a black photographer refuse to do publicity shots for a KKK rally, if he is requested to do so?

Can an evangelical Christian refuse to do similar shots for a gay wedding, if she is requested to do so?

We may frame it in terms of free exercise of religion, but this really goes beyond freedom of religion and into freedom of conscience. Whatever it is, it's being subsumed by some extra-constitutional "freedom from disagreement".

[Guest]

Soulsearcher, do you have an alert or a batphone or something? We never see you until these topics come up, then BAM! You're here.

[Traveler]

I believe that we must be careful what we are thinking about in how we use the force of law. Our constitution says that we will not pass any laws to prevent public gatherings or exercise of religion. This does not mean that individuals or business cannot discriminate religion or just a specific religion - just that the force of law cannot be used for enforce religious discrimination. Let me explain my thought more. To begin with I do not believe just because something is a good idea that we need laws to make it happen.

I believe that if someone wants to hire only Mormons - that they have a right to run their business in such a manner. I also believe that if someone wants to not hire Mormons - that they have the right to do that as well. I believe that someone should have the right to run or ruin their business. If hiring Mormons is an advantage then simple supply and demand will move business forward - likewise if Mormons are a disadvantage then again supply and demand will move business accordingly.

However, even though I believe someone has the right to determine who they trust in hiring - I do not believe that they have any right to tell others to run their business as they do. Thus if someone wants to fire someone - then I believe they have the right to do so and that the law should not force them the fire someone that they want to keep and keep someone they want to fire.

The more law is used to force such things the more unjust laws will become and the more intrusive the law will become in the freedoms and liberties (including profitability) of the very people that the law is trying to protect. If a business can compete with our without homosexuals - let that business make that determination - If they are right they will succeed the better - if they are wrong they will not be able to compete and it will solve itself. I do not believe we should pass laws to that the natural course of things will solve on its own without law.

The Traveler

[carlimac]

My question is what prevents anyone with gender issues or gay or lesbian from filing a lawsuit anytime they are fired from any job for any reason and then claiming it's because of discrimination? It seems too easy for a person to use that excuse to get back at a boss they didn't like. Even if they were a crummy employee. It would require a boss or owner of a business to never ever express any kind of negative thoughts about LGTBs in public or on facebook. I imagine it could be used against them even if it were a reflection of their religious beliefs.

What protections would an employer have against a gay fired employee with a grudge?

[Soulsearcher]

My question is what prevents anyone with gender issues or gay or lesbian from filing a lawsuit anytime they are fired from any job for any reason and then claiming it's because of discrimination? It seems too easy for a person to use that excuse to get back at a boss they didn't like. Even if they were a crummy employee. It would require a boss or owner of a business to never ever express any kind of negative thoughts about LGTBs in public or on facebook. I imagine it could be used against them even if it were a reflection of their religious beliefs.

What protections would an employer have against a gay fired employee with a grudge?

And the answer to your question is proper documentation. In any of the companies i've worked for you have to jump through hoops to fire any one except in very extreme cases. There must be a paper trail and in many cases witnesses to back up most of it and also for most of the paper work the worker must sign to have it completed, of if they disagree they can take it s step further. Out of all the times i've written people up I've never had someone refuse to sign cause by the time it gets to that point there's a mountain of evidence that they can't really deny.

You have to remember this isn't the first group to have these protections. Race, religion and gender already have the exact same protections. Have they been abused? of course they are, all protections have been abused. Will this one be? I'm sure it will. Now if, as a few have said, everyone is willing to give up all protected classes then that's something else entirely, but it can be pretty easy to scoff at something when you tend to take it for granted because you already have it.

For your example you could substitute : what would stop a woman, man, jew, muslim, LDS, black, chinese, white person from filing a lawsuit any time they are fired for any reason?

[Soulsearcher]

Soulsearcher, do you have an alert or a batphone or something? We never see you until these topics come up, then BAM! You're here.

I'm still here most everyday, just respond on things that interest me, don't have as much time as i used to for the activity i used to do on the site.

[Just_A_Guy]

And the answer to your question is proper documentation. In any of the companies i've worked for you have to jump through hoops to fire any one except in very extreme cases. There must be a paper trail and in many cases witnesses to back up most of it and also for most of the paper work the worker must sign to have it completed, of if they disagree they can take it s step further. Out of all the times i've written people up I've never had someone refuse to sign cause by the time it gets to that point there's a mountain of evidence that they can't really deny. . . .

For your example you could substitute : what would stop a woman, man, jew, muslim, LDS, black, chinese, white person from filing a lawsuit any time they are fired for any reason?

Sure, the big companies do that. I spent some time at Convergys, and boy--they have HR issues down to a science!

But many of the small companies that provide something like 80% of the jobs in the US, just can't afford to have a dedicated HR department. That's one of the reason the boss I mentioned in an earlier post is having so many headaches with that ex-clerk: we were a small law practice, pretty much family; and we just weren't geared to create the kind of paper trails that make it an open-and-shut case. My boss has sunk $20K in lawyers' fees and has prevailed on three separate administrative cases with various state and federal agencies--but the civil case is still in litigation Hades and will probably be there for another couple of years.

[Soulsearcher]

Sure, the big companies do that. I spent some time at Convergys, and boy--they have HR issues down to a science!

But many of the small companies that provide something like 80% of the jobs in the US, just can't afford to have a dedicated HR department. That's one of the reason the boss I mentioned in an earlier post is having so many headaches with that ex-clerk: we were a small law practice, pretty much family; and we just weren't geared to create the kind of paper trails that make it an open-and-shut case. My boss has sunk $20K in lawyers' fees and has prevailed on three separate administrative cases with various state and federal agencies--but the civil case is still in litigation Hades and will probably be there for another couple of years.

I guess my question is are they completely incapable or just not doing it? I've worked for some small companies of 10-15 people with no hr department and they followed most of the same steps, just not having an HR dept. They just kept files of any corrective action just to make their lives easier. That being said your example, to me, proves that this is capable no matter who the person is or what group they belong to. So as you said if people are just willing to remove any and all protections I'm great with it, leave it completely in the hands of them employer to hire and fire on a whim on a completely equal basis and just leave it at that. I'm just having a bit of an issues with people who think this one group shouldn't have it but see not much of a problem with it being provided to others.

[carlimac]

I suppose the reason I'm skeptical is because the whole "agenda" of the LGBTs seems to be to push the limits, to exploit laws for their own good unnecessarily (suing bakers and photographers) , to be seen and to show off ( parades and such). I'm not saying every gay person does this, but there is definitely the feeling that there is a chip on the shoulders of gays and lesbians in general ( I know- years and years of being bullied and stuck in the closet. I don't need another lecture on all that). It would not be surprising to see some using this law to stick it to a former employer. On the other hand, I just don't see that happening with religious sorts. It probably has happened but it's not in the news much these days. Women, people of color or other nationalities? That probably happens, too. But as much as you want to use this comparison, Soulsearcher, there is something very different about being fired simply and for no other reason than because you're a woman, Black or a member of the Pilgrim Brother Evangelists, and being fired because you're gay. This is another attempt to normalize and celebrate being gay. I know having same gender attraction and also having gender disillusionment can happen, but when it becomes one's whole identity and life, it can't help but affect others - often in a negative way.

Most likely people are fired because they just can't cut the work, but there may be personality issues between boss and employee that get in the way of good working relationships that are the cause, too. And it's not much of a stretch of the imagination that those personality mismatches would be with some folks with gender identity problems. If an employee is making customers uncomfortable with unnatural behavior or speech or whatever, the boss should have every right to fire them and it just might be based on their LGBT-ness. He or she might be a bright, capable worker in other ways and leave no other reason for a "paper trail". But there are dozens of reasons an employer might need to fire someone if simply "who they are" is bad for business. Employers should have the right to discriminate in order to maintain their business.

Edited November 11, 2013 by carlimac

[Guest]

I would oppose the bill too.

There just isn't any reason for a company to know your sexual orientation besides being born a boy or a girl so you can follow the dress code appropriately. Therefore, getting fired for being LGBT is not possible unless you bandy about your LGBT-ness at the workplace. It would be the same for non-LGBT people - you talk sex at work and you could get fired for sexual harassment, gay, straight, whatever.

The problem with putting a bill like this is it muddies the sexual harassment protection. Now, an employee who files sexual harassment case may have to think twice about it if the harassment comes from LGBT because... IT IS PROTECTED!

It really is stupid and silly. Keep your sex life private and you'll be fine. Okay, I didn't read the bill, nor did I read most of the posts in the thread so I don't really know what it entails... does it also protect you from getting fired for being straight?

Edited November 11, 2013 by anatess

[LittleWyvern]

The problem with putting a bill like this is it muddies the sexual harassment protection. Now, an employee who files sexual harassment case may have to think twice about it if the harassment comes from LGBT because... IT IS PROTECTED!

It really is stupid and silly. Keep your sex life private and you'll be fine. Okay, I didn't read the bill, nor did I read most of the posts in the thread so I don't really know what it entails... does it also protect you from getting fired for being straight?

Firstly, the bill says nothing about creating a new protected class of speech: it's strictly about discrimination in employment. Sexual harassment is a different issue covered by a completely different set of laws.

Second, yes, ENDA would protect someone from getting fired solely because they are straight. In some places, it's legal to fire someone for the sole reason of their sexual orientation or gender identity (the gray counties in the map). That means it's just as legal to fire someone for being gay as it is to fire someone for being straight: they're opposite things, but they're both allowed for the same reason: that kind of discrimination isn't illegal. ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, making it illegal to fire someone for being gay and illegal to fire someone for being straight.

You can also read this bill over here. It's pretty short as far as bills go.

Edited November 11, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[carlimac]

Firstly, the bill says nothing about creating a new protected class of speech: it's strictly about discrimination in employment. Sexual harassment is a different issue covered by a completely different set of laws.

Second, yes, ENDA would protect someone from getting fired solely because they are straight. In some places, it's legal to fire someone for the sole reason of their sexual orientation or gender identity (the gray counties in the map). That means it's just as legal to fire someone for being gay as it is to fire someone for being straight: they're opposite things, but they're both allowed for the same reason: that kind of discrimination isn't illegal. ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, making it illegal to fire someone for being gay and illegal to fire someone for being straight.

You can also read this bill over here. It's pretty short as far as bills go.

I honestly can't imagine wanting to work in an environment where it was adventageous to be gay.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm actually in agreement with the bill. The bill keeps those from being discriminated based on sexual orientation. If someone is qualified, they are qualified.

I oppose is lumping same-sex attraction with race/gender/age. The science is not yet conclusive on whether SSA is completely biological, is acquired, or some combination. By canonizing the sameness of "sexual orientation" with the traditional protected groups, we (the U.S.) are canonizing something that remains a controversy.

[prisonchaplain]

According to what I read about the bill, it excludes religious organizations.

That's not good enough for me. But hey, I still think landlords should be able to evict tenants who are found to be "living in sin."

[Soulsearcher]

Soulsearcher, there is something very different about being fired simply and for no other reason than because you're a woman, Black or a member of the Pilgrim Brother Evangelists, and being fired because you're gay.

Please spell out very clearly what the exact difference is for each of your examples.

I honestly can't imagine wanting to work in an environment where it was adventageous to be gay.

Possibly when the owner operator is gay? Also you wouldn't believe the people that have bought into stereo types and seek out gay people for decorating, party and event planning as well as designing and arts.

There just isn't any reason for a company to know your sexual orientation besides being born a boy or a girl so you can follow the dress code appropriately. Therefore, getting fired for being LGBT is not possible unless you bandy about your LGBT-ness at the workplace. It would be the same for non-LGBT people - you talk sex at work and you could get fired for sexual harassment, gay, straight, whatever.

The problem with this is people keep thinking it's all about sex. Once you get past that it isn't you might see it a bit different. To comply with your rules, no one straight or gay could mention their spouse or who they were dating. Family discussion could never come up because it might give away someone's orientation. It's not talking about sex that's being protected, it's being able to talk freely about other aspects of your life. i hear about husbands and wives all day. I get asked once a week about my marital status or if i'm dating someone all the time, just as part of normal discussion among co-workers. Rarely does my sex life ever come up except with co-workers i consider good friends and even then it's very vague. Heck even the very religious places i've worked talk about spouses and dating and family all the time.

So I also assume you don't ever mention the fact your married or have kids except to very close friends and family, and no one you or your husband might work with know your marital status?

[NightSG]

So just to clarify, you are completely ok with someone who has had an employee working for them for a few years and then finds out that that person is LDS and fires them on the spot?

Would you want to work for someone who would want to do that, whether they actually could or not?

[carlimac]

Possibly when the owner operator is gay? Also you wouldn't believe the people that have bought into stereo types and seek out gay people for decorating, party and event planning as well as designing and arts.

I meant, I can't imagine I would ever want to work in an environment saturated with gay people. But let's say hypothetically I had all the qualifications of creativity and design or musical/acting ability, got the job but then was fired because I wasn't gay? I'd say, well, OK if they don't want me because I'm hetero, I'm sure I can find a different venue. And I'd be grateful to get the zip out of there. But more realistically, I never would have sought a job in that business or with that particular group in the first place.

[Guest]

The problem with this is people keep thinking it's all about sex. Once you get past that it isn't you might see it a bit different. To comply with your rules, no one straight or gay could mention their spouse or who they were dating. Family discussion could never come up because it might give away someone's orientation. It's not talking about sex that's being protected, it's being able to talk freely about other aspects of your life. i hear about husbands and wives all day. I get asked once a week about my marital status or if i'm dating someone all the time, just as part of normal discussion among co-workers. Rarely does my sex life ever come up except with co-workers i consider good friends and even then it's very vague. Heck even the very religious places i've worked talk about spouses and dating and family all the time.

So I also assume you don't ever mention the fact your married or have kids except to very close friends and family, and no one you or your husband might work with know your marital status?

It is all about sex. It's called sexual orientation for a reason. If it wasn't about sex, there's no reason to carry the label. Straight people don't go around labeling themselves straight.

There is no reason for me to mention anything personal as it relates to my job. My resume does not mention if I'm married, have children, or if I date boys or girls. And companies CANNOT ask me that question on an interview as it is not pertinent to the job I am applying for.

Talking about my personal life to my work friends outside of work cannot be used to fire me from my job. I can sue my company if they try. Yes, it can be used to NOT hire me for a position I am applying for - for example, being married with children may limit my desirability for a travel job. But a private company has grounds to put any requirement they want to use to limit applicants unless it is protected by Civil Rights.

And there goes the rub... LGBT consider themselves a race... One of these days, I'm going to start a movement to put people under 5'2" in a protected group. It is quite discriminatory for companies to have the breakroom microwave just tall enough that I have to risk the step ladder in my 4-inch heels.