House Approves Broad Protections For Gay Workers

[memebag]

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?

Perhaps because the alternative is unemployment?

[TheNiche]

Perhaps because the alternative is unemployment?

Are your choices really that narrow!? Its a big world out there.

[HtownWxBoy]

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.

That is indeed a "fantasy world".

[TheNiche]

That is indeed a "fantasy world".

Yep, it sure is.

[memebag]

Are your choices really that narrow!? Its a big world out there.

I'm straight, so this isn't my choice. But that's what it boils down to. In an ideal world, the companies with the least prejudice would benefit from snatching up the best talent and drive the companies with the most prejudice out. We don't live in that world, and prejudice is widepsread.

[TheNiche]

I'm straight, so this isn't my choice. But that's what it boils down to. In an ideal world, the companies with the least prejudice would benefit from snatching up the best talent and drive the companies with the most prejudice out. We don't live in that world, and prejudice is widepsread.

I'd beg to differ. I'd be willing to wager that greed trumps prejudice in the vast majority of cases. Given that there is a choice between many employers--which there is--my question stands: why would a gay man want to work for a homophobic employer?

[memebag]

I'd beg to differ. I'd be willing to wager that greed trumps prejudice in the vast majority of cases. Given that there is a choice between many employers--which there is--my question stands: why would a gay man want to work for a homophobic employer?

I don't give that. In many industries there isn't a choice.

And why should someone have fewer choices of where to work because of who they are attracted to?

[TheNiche]

I don't give that. In many industries there isn't a choice.

And why should someone have fewer choices of where to work because of who they are attracted to?

If true, then that person is in the wrong industry. You ought not to pretend that people are pidgeonholed into a single career for life, that they must blindly follow the orders of an ownership class on some presumed path to happiness.

[west20th]

why would a gay man want to work for a homophobic employer?

The answer is most of us don't. The question should be why shouldn't we be able to work for whomever we want? Assuming otherwise qualified.

[TheNiche]

The answer is most of us don't. The question should be why shouldn't we be able to work for whomever we want? Assuming otherwise qualified.

I think you just answered my question. If the employer in question is homophobic and most gays don't want to work for a homophobic employer, then it seems like an issue that largely resolved without regulation.

[west20th]

The answer is most of us don't. The question should be why shouldn't we be able to work for whomever we want? Assuming otherwise qualified. Also, an employer's homo-phobia is not always apparent at the time of hiring. And bosses do change. A gay-friendly boss could always be replaced with a homo-phobic one.

I think you just answered my question. If the employer in question is homophobic and most gays don't want to work for a homophobic employer, then it seems like an issue that largely resolved without regulation.

No it is not resolved. The boss or his attitudes may change. Should we have to change jobs everytime we get a new homophobic boss?

[memebag]

If true, then that person is in the wrong industry. You ought not to pretend that people are pidgeonholed into a single career for life, that they must blindly follow the orders of an ownership class on some presumed path to happiness.

I'm not pretending that. I'm saying that a homosexual (or a black, or a white, or a heterosexual) shouldn't have to change careers because of prejudice. Why are you cutting haters so much slack?

[TheNiche]

Should we have to change jobs everytime we get a new homophobic boss?

Whether the government forces them to keep you on staff or not, it might be a really good idea.

I'm not pretending that. I'm saying that a homosexual (or a black, or a white, or a heterosexual) shouldn't have to change careers because of prejudice. Why are you cutting haters so much slack?

The last thing I want to do is legislate morality.

[west20th]

Whether the government forces them to keep you on staff or not, it might be a really good idea.

The last thing I want to do is legislate morality.

So you are against any sort of work place protection?

[TheNiche]

So you are against any sort of work place protection?

Yep. Barring very basic biological differences as they might pertain to narrow circumstances such as healthcare policy, it is my belief that all persons should be treated equally under the law regardless of their age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, or socioeconomic background.

[west20th]

Yep. Barring very basic biological differences as they might pertain to narrow circumstances such as healthcare policy, it is my belief that all persons should be treated equally under the law regardless of their age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, or socioeconomic background.

You can believe all people should be treated equally, but they won't. If people behaved as they should we wouldn't need any laws. Oh well, you are consistent.

[memebag]

The last thing I want to do is legislate morality.

Fair hiring practice is a moral issue? I don't see it.

[gwilson]

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

I don't need it. If someone who owns a company doesn't want to be around fat people, politically correct or not, I believe that to be his right. But I believe he must also be consistent. (And yes, I know I'll prolly get flamed for that, but I don't believe the Federal government has any right to mess with private enterprise nor does the Federal government have the right to legislate offensive behavior. We do not, and never have had, the right to not be offended).Here is a question though, why would one WANT to work for someone who discriminate if it wasn't against the law? I would want to stay as far away from people like that as possible. Making it illegal for him to not hire you based on orientation doesn't make it illegal for him to not still be a bigot. You can't legislate away bigotry.As a small government libertarian, I think more laws is not the answer. I also believe that the business owner has the right to do whatever he wants with his business and that the free market will sort it out. I believe that he doesn't have the right to impose his beliefs upon you as you don't have the right to impose yours upon him. And by refusing to hire fat people, he isn't imposing his rights upon me, he is simply exercising his right. He should not be forced to surround himself with people he dislikes or doesn't agree with. Just like I choose to not surround myself with people who hate fat people.

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!

Bravo.

That is indeed a "fantasy world".

Sad, isn't it?

I'm straight, so this isn't my choice. But that's what it boils down to. In an ideal world, the companies with the least prejudice would benefit from snatching up the best talent and drive the companies with the most prejudice out. We don't live in that world, and prejudice is widespread.

Yet another problem with laws like this is they, inadvertently, discriminate against others. When two persons go up for the same position, both qualified equally, and one is gay, a cautious employer will most likely take the gay candidate in an effort to stave off the chance of a law suit. This has been going on for years with whites and blacks and others. That is why legislation like this is ALWAYS flawed and should never been implemented to begin with.

So you are against any sort of work place protection?

The free markets are the best form of work place protection out there. The government just fubars it every time it gets involved.

You can believe all people should be treated equally, but they won't. If people behaved as they should we wouldn't need any laws. Oh well, you are consistent.

What you are missing is that while we believe everyone SHOULD be treated equally, we extend those freedoms to those who might not care for someone for whatever reason and we cannot impose upon them just like they cannot impose upon us.This isn't brain surgery.

Fair hiring practice is a moral issue? I don't see it.

Sure it is. The claim is that it is immoral to be a bigot. So making personal decisions as a business owner based on his immoral views is made illegal under such laws.

[memebag]

The free markets are the best form of work place protection out there. The government just fubars it every time it gets involved.

So the free market got rid of slavery in the US, and has totally eliminated racial discrimination in the workplace. Amazing. That free market, that's some market!

Sure it is. The claim is that it is immoral to be a bigot. So making personal decisions as a business owner based on his immoral views is made illegal under such laws.

No, the claim is that hiring and firing decisions should be based on merit alone, and that people shouldn't be punished for things like the color of their skin or to whom they are attracted. That doesn't stop anyone from being a bigot.

[west20th]

The free markets are the best form of work place protection out there.

You love that "free market" buzzword. Exactly, how is the "free market" going to protect my work place rights? Or are "free markets" and work place rights mutually exclusive. And exactly what do you mean by "free market"? No laws, no regulations at all pertaining to commerce?

[memebag]

You love that "free market" buzzword. Exactly, how is the "free market" going to protect my work place rights? Or are "free markets" and work place rights mutually exclusive. And exactly what do you mean by "free market"? No laws, no regulations at all pertaining to commerce?

In an ideal free market. irrational prejudice harms business. If company A doesn't hire left handed people and company B does, the company B gets an advantage by expanding its potential labor pool. That advantage eventually drives A out of business or causes it to lose its prejudice.

The problem is there are no ideal free markets outside textbooks.

[gwilson]

So the free market got rid of slavery in the US, and has totally eliminated racial discrimination in the workplace. Amazing. That free market, that's some market!

To be fair, yes. The free markets were well on their way to weening the country off of slavery. By the time of the EP, slavery wasn't nearly as widely used as it was just a few decades before that.

No, the claim is that hiring and firing decisions should be based on merit alone, and that people shouldn't be punished for things like the color of their skin or to whom they are attracted. That doesn't stop anyone from being a bigot.

Yes, they absolutely should be based on merit alone. However, laws like this make sure this isn't the case, it just happens in the favor of those being protected. It makes SURE, albeit inadvertently, that skin color/orientation/etc is a factor.

[west20th]

In an ideal free market. irrational prejudice harms business. If company A doesn't hire left handed people and company B does, the company B gets an advantage by expanding its potential labor pool. That advantage eventually drives A out of business or causes it to lose its prejudice.

The problem is there are no ideal free markets outside textbooks.

So in the real world "free markets" would be an ideal, something to strive for but left unfettered are a disaster? More a statement of my opinion than a question. I always find it facsinating how "free market" advocates only see the good points and and totally blind to the drawbacks. Nothing is all good or all bad. Even "free markets" need regulation.

[memebag]

To be fair, yes. The free markets were well on their way to weening the country off of slavery. By the time of the EP, slavery wasn't nearly as widely used as it was just a few decades before that.

Then why do we still have racial discrimination in hiring and firing? How long will the market take? Or is the discrimination we see today some sort of "reaction formation" triggered by equal opportunity regulations?

[gwilson]

You love that "free market" buzzword. Exactly, how is the "free market" going to protect my work place rights? Or are "free markets" and work place rights mutually exclusive. And exactly what do you mean by "free market"? No laws, no regulations at all pertaining to commerce?

The free markets is a fundamental foundation of this country. And it isn't a buzzword, it is the system that we are, supposedly, in. It simply means that there should be minimal, if any, interference or regulation by the government (this wasn't their job to begin with) when it comes to matters of commerce. If a company has unethical business practices, the market will correct it by either forcing them to be ethical or putting them out of business. It is like voting, with you dollar.How it would protect ones workplace rights (I'd like you to define that more in your next post please) is simple. If a company is known to discriminate against anyone, such information is made public and the market works it out by either forcing the business owner to quit the practice or he goes out of business (or simply takes a smaller market share catering to those who are like minded).

In an ideal free market. irrational prejudice harms business. If company A doesn't hire left handed people and company B does, the company B gets an advantage by expanding its potential labor pool. That advantage eventually drives A out of business or causes it to lose its prejudice.The problem is there are no ideal free markets outside textbooks.

Correct, but are you going to suggest that the over-regulated market we have now is better? I think not.We now have government sponsored discrimination (minority contract mandates and forcing employers to hire minorities to avoid law suits and minority scholarships, etc). On a bit of a tangent, when did we get it in our heads that we had the RIGHT to not be offended?

So in the real world "free markets" would be an ideal, something to strive for but left unfettered are a disaster? More a statement of my opinion than a question. I always find it facsinating how "free market" advocates only see the good points and and totally blind to the drawbacks. Nothing is all good or all bad. Even "free markets" need regulation.

We don't live in an ideal world, I'm aware of this. And while I'd love to see an unfettered free market, I understand that minimal government involvement, not as a regulatory force, but as a show of consequence should grave and especially previous business practices be enacted or maintained (things that DIRECTLY hurt people, not hurt their feelings, but hurt them).

Then why do we still have racial discrimination in hiring and firing? How long will the market take? Or is the discrimination we see today some sort of "reaction formation" triggered by equal opportunity regulations?

Because we still have racists and bigots in the world. I've been on the discriminated side of it when I was working for a black man. It is his right to dislike me because I'm white. Since it was his business, he shouldn't be forced to have me around, especially since he is paying me.I don't like assholes. If I start not hiring or firing people based on them being assholes, are the assholes of the country going to form a lobby and garner legislation that says you can't fire someone for being an asshole?I would also argue, having seen it first hand, that workplace protection legislation HURTS business by giving those who would normally get fired, or not even hired, much longer leashes.

[memebag]

Correct, but are you going to suggest that the over-regulated market we have now is better?

Nope. I think our current system needs more regulation, not less.

The free market is an excellent tool for some jobs, but not a panacea for all of society's problems. Our pragmatism is one of our greatest virtues. We don't have to follow a simple-minded dogma. We get to do what works and we don't make too big a fuss about changing strategies.

[TheNiche]

You can believe all people should be treated equally, but they won't. If people behaved as they should we wouldn't need any laws. Oh well, you are consistent.

But that's just the thing. I don't see it as the government's duty to dictate that people shouldn't behave as they do. Now that doesn't mean that I personally won't pick a verbal fight with such people on the basis of my own moral beliefs, or that I condone their behavior in any way whatsoever. But it ought to be their choice to accept or decline my basis of morality. An argument of this nature won by government intervention is in fact not an argument that has been won, but one in which the due process of reason has been usurped by force.

[TheNiche]

Fair hiring practice is a moral issue? I don't see it.

Morality is a discussion of good vs. bad, right vs. wrong.

What is fair hiring practice? Have you considered that the bigot might consider it unfair to him that he would be forced to hire someone that he isn't comfortable with? It is an entirely subjective matter. It is a matter of morality. His and yours. If you and people of like mind use government processes to silence your opponent and strip him of his power to demonstrate free will, is that also something that you don't perceive as a moral issue? Or does your deeply-committed sense of righteousness trump the other's well-being?

[TheNiche]

Exactly, how is the "free market" going to protect my work place rights?

Because you're free to seek another workplace. That's how.

[TheNiche]

Then why do we still have racial discrimination in hiring and firing? How long will the market take?

You presume that the greatest good is a world without racial discrimination, in which all employers act alike. It is my premise that the greatest good is a world in which individuals may think and act of their own accord.

Perhaps intolerance will never be entirely defeated. I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with people being silenced, deprived of free will, even if it is a freedom that will be their own financial undoing. Perhaps they place nonpecuniary value upon the execution of their own moral beliefs. It is not my place to deprive them of the satisfaction derived from living what they perceive as a moral life. I may be able to change how it is that they perceive satisfaction, thus changing their actions, but I will not be an accomplice to government-sanctioned theft of one man's satisfaction.