House Approves Broad Protections For Gay Workers

[Jeebus]

Well, yes, I could chose to hide my sexual orientation, and I did that for years when I was younger. It wasn't psychologically healthy then, and it's not conducive to my mental health now. I don't prance into my clients' offices carrying a rainbow flag and wearing a t-shirt that proclaims my orientation. However, I'm not going to lie and say I have a wife or kids when I don't, just because that might make someone else I work with more comfortable. If I'm asked, I'll answer honestly. The fact that I have a boyfriend is not something I try to hide, but it's also something that doesn't usually come up in the normal course of my business. However, should it come up, I should have every right to honestly say that I'm in a relationship with someone of the same sex, just as you might say you have a wife or girlfriend, without fearing that I'm going to lose my job as a result. And my employer should have no right to fire me just for that reason, just as they should have no right to fire someone for being in a relationship with, or married to, a member of the opposite sex.

Now, if I chose to disclose my sexual orientation by bringing my boyfriend to work and stripping down and getting it on in the middle of the office in front of everyone else, I should be disciplined accordingly. Not for being gay, but for inappropriate behavior, just as someone who is heterosexual should be disciplined for engaging in the same behavior in the workplace.

Sullivan, you seem to be the only one taking this thread seriously. I agree with both your points. I'm not saying anyone should hide their sexuality. I'm saying that unlike skin color, age, gender, or disability, you can change how people percieve your sexuality (and religious beliefs as well). With that, now anyone can claim that they were gay all along when they get fired so that they can keep their job. I say if you want "gay rights", then there should be disclosure. Right next to the age, gender, and race box on your HR file, should be a sexual preference box. That way it will keep the false claims to a minimum.

Its no different that having to take a random drug test in the workplace. If you go to your EAP and tell them you have a drug problem, then when/if you get selected and test positive, there will at least be a paper trail supporting your claim and you probably won't get fired. If you don't go and ask for help, then get tested, and fail, then you have no ground to stand on.

You people must sit at home all day or own your own business to not see the potential for abuse this bill will cause in the workplace. Don't get me wrong, "yay for gays" - you won another one. But seriously, the rest of us will be at work tomorrow.

[VicMan]

Jeebus, do you feel that the Senate will introduce portions to the bill that will prevent abuse?

[HtownWxBoy]

Sure you can do something about it. Unlike skin color, age, gender, or disability, you can choose to not act gay, or practice your gay lifestyle in the workplace, if that business discourages or discriminates against it. Well, not anymore you won't have to.

You can't choose your skin color, age, gender, or disability, which is why I 100% agree that you shouldn't be able to discriminate along those lines. Even if you are a Hooters.

No one has brought it up, but how will this affect the military? Or will it?

First, gay is not a lifestyle. Second, if my boss sees me outside of the workplace holding my boyfriend's hand or giving him a kiss much like my boss gives his wife a kiss or holds her hand, he can fire me when I return to work b/c he doesn't like gay people. You don't have to be 'ACTING GAY' at work to be fired from work b/c you are gay.

[HtownWxBoy]

My point is this. You were born a certain color, and gender. As time goes on, you will age. You might have been born with a disibilty or you might gain one in time.

Either way, you can not change any of those things. A Mexican woman can not walk into her office one day and decide to be a White man. She can however decide before walking into that office what her sexuality will be seen as (gay or straight) and what her religious preference will be (if she has one).

So how do you give rights to something that can change daily? Now anyone who gets fired can say that they were fired because they're gay. How could you prove that they aren't?

I guess if you're gay, or don't own a business - then you really wouldn't care would you?

Well I never got a chance to decide my "sexuality"... I have always been 100% ONLY physically and emotionally attracted to other guys.

I take SUCH JOY in knowing that, even w/ the struggles gay people face these days, that overall we are totally winning the war and slowing gaining more and more rights and acceptance. Every battle we win is a battle people like you lose... it's AWSOME!! >

[rps324]

... you seem to be the only one taking this thread seriously.

It isn't the thread people can't take seriously.

[HtownWxBoy]

Sullivan, you seem to be the only one taking this thread seriously. I agree with both your points. I'm not saying anyone should hide their sexuality. I'm saying that unlike skin color, age, gender, or disability, you can change how people percieve your sexuality (and religious beliefs as well). With that, now anyone can claim that they were gay all along when they get fired so that they can keep their job. I say if you want "gay rights", then there should be disclosure. Right next to the age, gender, and race box on your HR file, should be a sexual preference box. That way it will keep the false claims to a minimum.

Its no different that having to take a random drug test in the workplace. If you go to your EAP and tell them you have a drug problem, then when/if you get selected and test positive, there will at least be a paper trail supporting your claim and you probably won't get fired. If you don't go and ask for help, then get tested, and fail, then you have no ground to stand on.

You people must sit at home all day or own your own business to not see the potential for abuse this bill will cause in the workplace. Don't get me wrong, "yay for gays" - you won another one. But seriously, the rest of us will be at work tomorrow.

And we will win MANY more to come... just you wait.... and WE will ALSO be at work tomorrow! (well, I won't be at work tomorrow b/c I am away on vacation visiting my family, but when I return to H-town I will be at work!) >

[HtownWxBoy]

Can your sexual orientation change daily? Mine never does that. Should I be concerned?

OMG mine doesn't either!! EEeeeek what should I do?... is there a pill to take!!??

[RedScare]

You people must sit at home all day or own your own business to not see the potential for abuse this bill will cause in the workplace.

Actually, as a lawyer who has seen how the existing anti-discrimination statutes work, I fail to see why adding one more protected group will change anything at all. Gays who feel discriminated against face the same burden of proof as Blacks, Jews, women and snake handlers. There is no more potential for abuse today than there has been for all other protected groups. That is why this business owner is not concerned.

Frankly, if you have seen how much harder the current administration has made it for legitimate claims of discrimination, you would not be the least bit concerned about abuse.

[ssullivan]

I agree RedScare. I doubt there would be many cases of someone trying to fake being gay after being terminated in order to bring legal action under ENDA.

[memebag]

Actually, as a lawyer who has seen how the existing anti-discrimination statutes work, I fail to see why adding one more protected group will change anything at all.

That's my take on it, too. It's always been hard to prove discrimination, especially in a state like Texas. This won't make it any easier. Any reasonably intelligent employer will still be able to protect himself from this legislation.

I'm just fascinated by all of the claims that sexual orientation is chosen. Why won't anyone answer my questions about that?

[ssullivan]

Any reasonably intelligent employer will still be able to protect himself from this legislation.

Well, if an employer is fair in its hiring and management practices, and makes employment decisions based on merit alone, there really isn't any need to worry about this legislation, or any other civil rights legislation. The ones who really need to "protect themselves" are the ones who are engaging in discriminatory practices to begin with.

These laws aren't designed to make it impossible to terminate someone. They do make it necessary for the employer to document and justify the reason for an involuntary termination, but that's something that should be done anyway, regardless of the employee's race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other status. Where this becomes an issue is when there is harassment, termination, inequality in pay and/or promotion, or other issues, with no real basis related to the employee's performance.

[MidtownCoog]

I'm just fascinated by all of the claims that sexual orientation is chosen.

I think what Jeebus is trying to say is that there is currently no scientific measure to evidence a person's sexual orientation.

If you say you're "gay" we just have to take your word for it. Although for some it's more than obvious.

[CDeb]

CDeb, my guess as to the HR policies you described is that because some locales where the company does business have protections based on orientation, they found it better to be consistent companywide.

Makes sense, as both corporations are based in California, where I'm assuming that such protections have existed for a while.

[MidtownCoog]

The UK is taking this to the next level:

New law could make gay jokes illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../08/ngay108.xml

[HtownWxBoy]

The UK is taking this to the next level:

New law could make gay jokes illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../08/ngay108.xml

I don't really agree w/ that... we should still have free speech.

[dbigtex56]

The mere fact that a law is on the books will make people think twice before overtly discriminating against or harrassing gay people at the workplace.

Just look at the smoking ordinance. No arrests have been made, nor has any sort of enforcement been necessary to change people's habits.

[gwilson]

Yes we are. Just because it doesn't happen where you work doesn't mean all is well and good everywhere. I assume you work for a company with it's own non-discrimination policy? Try being a 'mo and working for redneck piping/plant design company.

I'm fat and have been the target of inappropriate things in the workplace for it. Should there be legislation for that too?

Legislation isn't the answer to everything. An amendment to prior legislation might have been more appropriate simply stating that you cannot discriminate on anything other than skill and qualifications.

[west20th]

I'm fat and have been the target of inappropriate things in the workplace for it. Should there be legislation for that too?Legislation isn't the answer to everything. An amendment to prior legislation might have been more appropriate simply stating that you cannot discriminate on anything other than skill and qualifications.

If you need "fat" protection:1. Introduce legislation2. Lobby and wait for 30 years

I think what Jeebus is trying to say is that there is currently no scientific measure to evidence a person's sexual orientation. If you say you're "gay" we just have to take your word for it. Although for some it's more than obvious.

Aaaaaaw. You look so much like your mom!

[MidtownCoog]

Looking at me and my mom, you really have to wonder if being gay is a genetic defect. Could it be genetic design gone bad? Is the lack of a desire to breed a way to eventually eliminate this defect?

What would be the point of whoever created us designing people who don't want to carry on the human race?

[west20th]

Could it be genetic design gone bad? Is the lack of a desire to breed a way to eventually eliminate this defect?

Since gays have been around forever, obviously not.

[HtownWxBoy]

Looking at me and my mom, you really have to wonder if being gay is a genetic defect. Could it be genetic design gone bad? Is the lack of a desire to breed a way to eventually eliminate this defect?

What would be the point of whoever created us designing people who don't want to carry on the human race?

Maybe it's just mother nature's way of doing population control? Who knows. I don't really care why I was born gay... just proud to be who I am!

[N Judah]

Ha, I've lived/worked in places where I was subject to stereotypes/mockery about being straight, and about being religious. I didn't care...I just moved.

I think gay people who feel uncomfortable in the workplace should just move to one of those places. Most of the time they're the ones who bring it up themselves.

[Jeebus]

Since gays have been around forever, obviously not.

Mental retardation has been around forever as well. I'm not saying there's any correlation. I'm just making a point.

[Daniepwils]

And one believing that being gay is a choice, or one must "conceal" who they are at the work place must be retarded!

[west20th]

Mental retardation has been around forever as well. I'm not saying there's any correlation. I'm just making a point.

Midtown's "point" was that gay tend not to reproduce so gays theoretically should disappear. So what "point" are you making?

[Jeebus]

Midtown's "point" was that gay tend not to reproduce so gays theoretically should disappear. So what "point" are you making?

Mentally retarded people don't tend to breed, as with gays (again no correlation to being homosexual and mentally retarded), which per Midtown's hypothesis would mean that they would all but be eliminated through evolution at some point.

You said since they're (gays) still around, obviously this hypothesis is incorrect. I was just pointing out that it must be incorrect concerning mentally retarded people as well.

I think Midtown touched on something earlier I have considered could be a viable scientific reason behind people who say they were "born gay". I wonder if in years down the road scientists will find difference in a homosexuals DNA to that of a heterosexual. Perhaps a genetic mutation? Too many or too few chromosomes? Who's to say that if they find this, they won't say that the homosexual's DNA is the correct make-up and all of us breeders are the mutants whose DNA mutated to keep the species alive?

[sevfiv]

Mentally retarded people don't tend to breed, as with gays (again no correlation to being homosexual and mentally retarded), which per Midtown's hypothesis would mean that they would all but be eliminated through evolution at some point.

Of all the couples I know, the gay and straight ones have about the same rate of having children (well, maybe not multiples - the straight couples I know tend to have more children - but I would venture that it has more to do with planning).

[HtownWxBoy]

Midtown's "point" was that gay tend not to reproduce so gays theoretically should disappear. So what "point" are you making?

Obviously this is wrong... I am gay and I was born to two straight parents.

[MidtownCoog]

I was just throwing it out there as more proof that there ain't no proof if you are AC or DC.

[TheNiche]

I haven't even touched this topic until now, but I can't help but wonder why a gay person would want a homophobic employer to be forced to hire him. What gay man would want to work for such a company in the first place?

For what it's worth, I'm a big believer in human rights, but not gay rights, women's rights, the rights of disabled people, or the rights of particular races/ethnicities/nationalities. In my little fantasy world, everyone is treated equally under the law; justice is blind with respect to the individual person.