House Approves Broad Protections For Gay Workers

[KinkaidAlum]

I just wish that Americans were as worried about losing "individual freedoms" that our government takes from us in the name of security as they were in the individual rights of employers to discriminate for non-work reasons. I don't recall any of the posters expressing all of these concerns ever agreeing with me when I complain that the Bush government is listening to our phone calls, coming into our homes in secret and without warrants, and throwing people in jail without giving them lawyers or trials. In fact, I have seen a few oppose me on it. But, take away a homophobe boss' right to fire somebone for being a fag, and NOW our "individual freedoms" are being taken away.

Winner Winner, Lobster Dinner.

This isn't a big deal unless you've been discriminated against or you've been discriminatory. Reading this thread, I can see where certain posters fall.

What is a big deal is that the U.S. Constitution has been under assault for the last 7 years but we're all too busy worried about why we can't hate on the gays, lezzies, crippled, feminazis, Mexicans, old, young, pierced, black, liberals, conservatives, immigrants, Chinese, etc... to notice. I figure that's EXACTLY how they want it to be.

[TheNiche]

How will that happen? What makes the ability to fire someone for being gay so important that our free will depends on it?

In this specific case, it is not our free will (yours and mine) that is threatened. It is the will of an ever-diminishing minority. It is important to protect the free will of the minority because a law that establishes or stregnthens such precedent that lends credence to the notion that the majority can or should force others to act upon its moral judgement is in my opinion an erosion of the very pillars of human rights.

You see, I am the minority--not as far as gay-bashing is concerned, but certainly in most matters. I would be hard-pressed, I think, to find someone that is in the majority on every single issue or that leads a perfectly 'normal' life in every conceivable way. My creed is very simply to live and let live, as I acknowledge that there is no single path to happiness. In fact, it is entirely possible that people believing something that I do not may impart to me wisdom that--if normality were legislated--would be lost to a vastly boring herd of humanity, reduced to a mass, devoid of individuals. ...but that is largely a tangent as it relates to this topic. I will spare you the 'slippery slope' fallacy, though it might not be entirely without validity.

[TheNiche]

Winner Winner, Lobster Dinner.

This isn't a big deal unless you've been discriminated against or you've been discriminatory. Reading this thread, I can see where certain posters fall.

What is a big deal is that the U.S. Constitution has been under assault for the last 7 years but we're all too busy worried about why we can't hate on the gays, lezzies, crippled, feminazis, Mexicans, old, young, pierced, black, liberals, conservatives, immigrants, Chinese, etc... to notice. I figure that's EXACTLY how they want it to be.

You're very correct. Myself and my parents experienced numerous incidences of discrimination while living in McAllen. I recognize that it was a minority of the population that took it upon themselves to be particularly rude to us, although there were some cultural influences. For instance, my father went through job after job in the healthcare industry trying to find a firm in which nepotism wasn't present and didn't create problems. The Mexican culture being very family-oriented, and he expecting that all his subordinates--even the owners' sons/nephews/etc.--would actually perform work, he was never very successful. So he excersized his freedom to quit...numerous times. When he gave up on McAllen, he moved up this direction. He's much happier now. Serves as an inspiration: 1) figure out what it takes to make you happy, 2) execute.

I also agree that this is a pretty small issue in the grand scheme of things.

[RedScare]

Actually, Niche, I think you are completely backwards on this one. The normality that you fear has been legislated for several years, including the normality that gays are lessers, and therefore may be fired or not hired strictly on that basis. This legislation, and others like it, protect non-normal employees from capricious firings by the normal bosses.

In a perfect world, legislation such as this would not be needed. Many of the posts on this thread prove that it is far from a perfect world. I notice that many of the "free marketers" want all of the rights with none of the obligations. In your case, I know it is more your devotion to the ideology than any wish to exercise discrimination, but many employers (and some posters) hide behind the ideology in an effort to preserve their right to practice discrimination. I have no problem with legislation that disallows those efforts.

The ever increasing abuses inflicted by companies on employees and consumers in an unregulated market is proving to me that "free markets" are the preferred playpen of thieves. The fact that some of these thieves have amassed millions, or even billions, does not change their moral bankruptness. They merely dress better. Unfortunately, since the well paid thieves own the politicians, corporate thievery remains legal, while stealing a Snickers from the corner store will still land one in jail.

[TheNiche]

Actually, Niche, I think you are completely backwards on this one. The normality that you fear has been legislated for several years, including the normality that gays are lessers, and therefore may be fired or not hired strictly on that basis. This legislation, and others like it, protect non-normal employees from capricious firings by the normal bosses.

In a perfect world, legislation such as this would not be needed. Many of the posts on this thread prove that it is far from a perfect world. I notice that many of the "free marketers" want all of the rights with none of the obligations. In your case, I know it is more your devotion to the ideology than any wish to exercise discrimination, but many employers (and some posters) hide behind the ideology in an effort to preserve their right to practice discrimination. I have no problem with legislation that disallows those efforts.

You seem to express regard only for the protection of employees' concerns. What of owners' concerns? They're all just human. All equal. All deserving of equal treatment. Having accepted that premise, perhaps I might illustrate the absurdity of this law by turning the tables. At what point should government recognize that bigots are not only employers but also employees?

An agreement between employer and employee to cooperate towards a common goal requires the sanction of both parties, whereas each of those parties enjoy equal rights and protections under the law...or at least should in my judgement. Some may claim that there is a fundamental difference on account of that the employer is just a greedy scoundrel concerned only with his own profits. What of it? Is an employee not also driven by greed? Are wages not just profits by another name?

So do you believe that the government should also force homophobic employees to work for gay employers? And yes, I realize that there is some statistical impracticality inherent to this question as it might apply in reality, but if only as a hypothetical, I'd ask whether you'd back such a policy? What would you consider the benefit? Do you imagine that gay employers would be happy at being forced to employ people that find them despicable? Do you suppose that homophobes would be very happy about working for gay employers? Do you see any real difference when the tables are turned back to the realm of reality? If so, please be elaborative. I'd love to hear all about it.

Also, Red: I don't pretend that it is or could be a perfect world, and I'm not sure why you and others pretend that I believe that. I am no Pangloss.

The ever increasing abuses inflicted by companies on employees and consumers in an unregulated market is proving to me that "free markets" are the preferred playpen of thieves. The fact that some of these thieves have amassed millions, or even billions, does not change their moral bankruptness. They merely dress better. Unfortunately, since the well paid thieves own the politicians, corporate thievery remains legal, while stealing a Snickers from the corner store will still land one in jail.

I never said that free markets were perfectly efficient. In fact, I thought that I'd stated earlier that that they have some problems requiring regulation. Theivery is one of those problems. And incidentally, by pointing out that wealthy folks representing a sort of fraudulent aristocracy in this country, endowed with special privelidges, you touch on a problem--corruption--that can be aided by taking a very exacting, minimalist, and cautious approach to law.

Please dispense with the straw men and red herrings.

[gwilson]

I just watched "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry". It was cute.

[memebag]

In this specific case, it is not our free will (yours and mine) that is threatened. It is the will of an ever-diminishing minority. It is important to protect the free will of the minority because a law that establishes or stregnthens such precedent that lends credence to the notion that the majority can or should force others to act upon its moral judgement is in my opinion an erosion of the very pillars of human rights.

I'm having a very hard time keeping up with this, so let's go slow.

You're saying that the free will of bigoted bosses is threatened by this legislation because they are a minority. Are you also saying that the free will of gay employees is not threatened because they are not a minority?

[MidtownCoog]

I also agree that this is a pretty small issue in the grand scheme of things.

This type legislation is norm de rigeur now that the Dems are in control.

[TheNiche]

You're saying that the free will of bigoted bosses is threatened by this legislation because they are a minority.

Not precisely. The proximate cause of a loss of freedom is not an issue that I've been concentrating on. I've been talking about what the optimal scope of government ought to be. If you want to talk about what caused this legislation, we must talk about political mechanisms.

Are you also saying that the free will of gay employees is not threatened because they are not a minority?

No. I do not mean to say that gays are not a demographic minority. That the majority of people accept them for who they are while others do not is what makes this a moral issue, one that is being legislated so as to have the effect of forcing one group's beliefs on another.

[RedScare]

At what point should government recognize that bigots are not only employers but also employees?

Is an employee not also driven by greed? Are wages not just profits by another name?

So do you believe that the government should also force homophobic employees to work for gay employers? And yes, I realize that there is some statistical impracticality inherent to this question as it might apply in reality, but if only as a hypothetical, I'd ask whether you'd back such a policy? What would you consider the benefit? Do you imagine that gay employers would be happy at being forced to employ people that find them despicable? Do you suppose that homophobes would be very happy about working for gay employers? Do you see any real difference when the tables are turned back to the realm of reality? If so, please be elaborative. I'd love to hear all about it.

Please dispense with the straw men and red herrings.

Bigoted employees are entitled to no protections. In fact, government requires that employers protect their employees from bigots. So, the government already acknowledges this fact.

The government does not and should not FORCE anyone to work where they do not wish....gay or homophobic. However, your attempt at turning the tables illustrates this law's wide protections. IF, to put your question in a form related to this topic, a gay employer terminated a straight man BECAUSE he is straight, the employee receives protection from this law...including MidtownCoog. If Coog wishes to work for a company run by a gay, and is otherwise qualified, the gay boss cannot refuse to hire on that basis.

From the article...

The House bill would make it illegal for an employer

[memebag]

Not precisely. The proximate cause of a loss of freedom is not an issue that I've been concentrating on. I've been talking about what the optimal scope of government ought to be. If you want to talk about what caused this legislation, we must talk about political mechanisms.

I asked for a good reason that the freedom to hire or fire based on sexual orientation should be defended. You said "free will". I think asked why free will depended on that. Then you said:

It is important to protect the free will of the minority because a law that establishes or stregnthens such precedent that lends credence to the notion that the majority can or should force others to act upon its moral judgement is in my opinion an erosion of the very pillars of human rights.

I'm trying to figure out why free will depends on the right to hire and fire over sexual orientation and not over the right to be employed regardless of sexual orientation. I don't see anything in there about the optimal scope of government, but about the bigoted bosses being a minority. I'm not asking what caused this legislation, but why you think "free will" is a good reason to oppose this legislation.

No. I do not mean to say that gays are not a demographic minority. That the majority of people accept them for who they are while others do not is what makes this a moral issue, one that is being legislated so as to have the effect of forcing one group's beliefs on another.

What makes you think that "the majority of people accept [gays] for who they are"?

Are you really saying that because some people say they base their opposition to homosexuality on their sense of morality that this must be a moral issue?

[gwilson]

I asked for a good reason that the freedom to hire or fire based on sexual orientation should be defended. You said "free will". I think asked why free will depended on that. Then you said:

I'm trying to figure out why free will depends on the right to hire and fire over sexual orientation and not over the right to be employed regardless of sexual orientation. I don't see anything in there about the optimal scope of government, but about the bigoted bosses being a minority. I'm not asking what caused this legislation, but why you think "free will" is a good reason to oppose this legislation.

What makes you think that "the majority of people accept [gays] for who they are"?

Are you really saying that because some people say they base their opposition to homosexuality on their sense of morality that this must be a moral issue?

Will & Grace was one of NBCs most successful shows.

BravoTV has a pretty large audience and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was a runaway hit.

Elton John is still one of the worlds most beloved musicians.

I don't see a pattern of gay hatred and intolerance among the majority.

[west20th]

Will & Grace was one of NBCs most successful shows.

BravoTV has a pretty large audience and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was a runaway hit.

Elton John is still one of the worlds most beloved musicians.

I don't see a pattern of gay hatred and intolerance among the majority.

Not sure if there is or isn't a pattern among the majority but I hardly think a couple TV shows and a musician prove anything.

[MidtownCoog]

So are there more "overt gay haters" or "gays"?

I'd say there are more gays.

Pelosi and Kenedy? Well, they just love them some votes.

[Jeebus]

Not sure if there is or isn't a pattern among the majority but I hardly think a couple TV shows and a musician prove anything.

Then what would it take to prove a pattern of existing tolerance among the majority of Americans?

[TheNiche]

Bigoted employees are entitled to no protections. In fact, government requires that employers protect their employees from bigots. So, the government already acknowledges this fact.

The government does not and should not FORCE anyone to work where they do not wish....gay or homophobic. However, your attempt at turning the tables illustrates this law's wide protections. IF, to put your question in a form related to this topic, a gay employer terminated a straight man BECAUSE he is straight, the employee receives protection from this law...including MidtownCoog. If Coog wishes to work for a company run by a gay, and is otherwise qualified, the gay boss cannot refuse to hire on that basis.

So, if the homophobe wishes to work for the gay employer, he is free to do so. If he does not wish to, he does not have to. The same rules apply if the applicant is gay, and the employer homophobic. No one's rights were taken away. All employees and applicants gained a right. Granted, discriminatory employers were restricted, but I am OK with that. There are numerous regulations on business, from permits and safety regulations, wages, insurance, and others. THIS particular restriction cost the business nothing, and is good for US employees.

You've totally misunderstood the nature of my complaint against this law. Go back and read what I've already said.

[west20th]

Then what would it take to prove a pattern of existing tolerance among the majority of Americans?

Don't know and don't care. Personally I don't look for and don't need anyone's tolerance. If someone doesn't tolerate me that is their right. However, like everyone else, their rights should end where other's rights begin. You (not you personally) don't have to like me just do not trample my rights in the course of exercising your own.

[TheNiche]

I'm trying to figure out why free will depends on the right to hire and fire over sexual orientation and not over the right to be employed regardless of sexual orientation. I don't see anything in there about the optimal scope of government, but about the bigoted bosses being a minority. I'm not asking what caused this legislation, but why you think "free will" is a good reason to oppose this legislation.

From a previous post of mine:

An agreement between employer and employee to cooperate towards a common goal requires the sanction of both parties, whereas each of those parties enjoy equal rights and protections under the law...or at least should in my judgement.

If one of them finds the negotiated terms of a proposed agreement unacceptable and decides to walk, I believe that to be their prerogative. If the government intrudes to force the uncooperative party to agree to terms that are not satisfactory, that is theft. It does not matter, in my mind whether the government's force is by financial or physical means; the victim may as well be put at the point of a gun and told to sacrifice that which is dear to him, whether it be his property or his moral code, the latter being the very thing that defines him.

What makes you think that "the majority of people accept [gays] for who they are"?

My personal experiences, having worked with lots of gay people, many of them very successful, in a world chock-full of non-gays.Besides, if homophobes were the majority, do you really think that this kind of legislation would ever be passed?

Are you really saying that because some people say they base their opposition to homosexuality on their sense of morality that this must be a moral issue?

More or less, yes. I'd also say that anyone that believes that employers are obligated to do anything at all for employees other than to abide by their own agreements is speaking from a moral basis.

Don't know and don't care. Personally I don't look for and don't need anyone's tolerance. If someone doesn't tolerate me that is their right. However, like everyone else, their rights should end where other's rights begin. You (not you personally) don't have to like me just do not trample my rights in the course of exercising your own.

I deeply respect that.

[memebag]

If one of them finds the negotiated terms of a proposed agreement unacceptable and decides to walk, I believe that to be their prerogative. If the government intrudes to force the uncooperative party to agree to terms that are not satisfactory, that is theft. It does not matter, in my mind whether the government's force is by financial or physical means; the victim may as well be put at the point of a gun and told to sacrifice that which is dear to him, whether it be his property or his moral code, the latter being the very thing that defines him.My personal experiences, having worked with lots of gay people, many of them very successful, in a world chock-full of non-gays.Besides, if homophobes were the majority, do you really think that this kind of legislation would ever be passed?More or less, yes. I'd also say that anyone that believes that employers are obligated to do anything at all for employees other than to abide by their own agreements is speaking from a moral basis.I deeply respect that.

It sounds like you're opposed to all civil rights legislation, then, and would be happier if we went back to the 1950s. We have a fundamental disagreement about what "law" is and how it can be used.

[TheNiche]

It sounds like you're opposed to all civil rights legislation, then, and would be happier if we went back to the 1950s.

The body of law that pertains to civil rights is far too extensive for you to conclude that I'm opposed to all civil rights legislation. There is some I like, and some I do not.

As for which era I'd prefer to live in, although it'd be ever-so-tempting to go back to the later quarter of the 18th century, I prefer the present and future. Better absolute standard of living.

We have a fundamental disagreement about what "law" is and how it can be used.

Not really. I may not recognize the government's right to do a lot of things, but I recognize their ability. Clearly what has been passed by the house could become law and could be used as intended.

[Parrothead]

I guess I believe, too, that everyone, regardless of race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. should have equal protection when it comes to employment. Not special protection for some.

[memebag]

The body of law that pertains to civil rights is far too extensive for you to conclude that I'm opposed to all civil rights legislation. There is some I like, and some I do not.

But you just said:

If one of them finds the negotiated terms of a proposed agreement unacceptable and decides to walk, I believe that to be their prerogative. If the government intrudes to force the uncooperative party to agree to terms that are not satisfactory, that is theft.

That seems to equate all civil rights legislation with theft. The government is intruding to force uncooperative parties to terms they would not otherwise choose.

As for which era I'd prefer to live in, although it'd be ever-so-tempting to go back to the later quarter of the 18th century, I prefer the present and future. Better absolute standard of living.

But without equal employment opportunity legislation, right?

Not really. I may not recognize the government's right to do a lot of things, but I recognize their ability. Clearly what has been passed by the house could become law and could be used as intended.

Calling law "theft" makes it sound like you consider it something other than law.

[west20th]

I guess I believe, too, that everyone, regardless of race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. should have equal protection when it comes to employment. Not special protection for some.

Who is not protected? Race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation seems to cover everyone. Looks like your covered at least twice. Well some are left out. Convicted felons, for example.

[Parrothead]

Well, this reminds me a lot of hate crime legislation. Everyone should be protected equally (no, not convicted felons... ) . What difference should it make in punishment if you murder someone for being gay, black, or for wearing white shoes after Labor Day? There need not be a "special" law passed. Just my opinion.

[memebag]

Well, this reminds me a lot of hate crime legislation. Everyone should be protected equally (no, not convicted felons... ) . What difference should it make in punishment if you murder someone for being gay, black, or for wearing white shoes after Labor Day? There need not be a "special" law passed. Just my opinion.

You just said that "everyone, regardless of race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc. should have equal protection". Right now, there is no protection against being fired or not hired based on sexual orientation. This law doesn't give any group special rights, it extends employment rights to cover sexual orientation.

[TheNiche]

That seems to equate all civil rights legislation with theft. The government is intruding to force uncooperative parties to terms they would not otherwise choose.

Nope. Take, for instance, Title III of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits municpalities and states from preventing any citizens from using any facilities. I like that. Title VII, I don't like.

You should generally avoid speaking categorically in discussions of far-reaching topics, using words like "all".

You'll be wrong less frequently.

But without equal employment opportunity legislation, right?

If by stating that you think that I'd prefer to live in the 1950's, that means that I don't like EOE law, you'd be right...but that sure is a funny way to ask whether I like EOE law or not.

Calling law "theft" makes it sound like you consider it something other than law.

The concept of theft is well-understood and need not be a concept adopted into law to hold meaning. 'Person A' owns 'Thing 1'; 'Person B' doesn't own 'Thing 1'. Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' place positive value on 'Thing 1'. 'Person B' takes 'Thing 1' for their own use without 'Person A's consent.

[RedScare]

Who is not protected? Race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation seems to cover everyone. Looks like your covered at least twice. Well some are left out. Convicted felons, for example.

Actually, she is covered at least six ways. She cannot be fired on account of her being, caucasian, white, female, heterosexual, Christian, or because of her age.

EVERY worker is protected by all of these protections. The argument arises when one does not feel the sting of discrimination, or does not feel the need for the protection. Parrothead (to use her as an example) may be none to pleased if she is refused employment because she is female or Christian. Since it would be a rare occurrence that a heterosexual is refused employment, she may not see the need for protection.

Likewise, gwilson may not feel the sting of discrimination, being a young white male heterosexual. Yet, the law still protects him. The fact that he may claim that he does not need the protection (he probably doesn't, given the rarity of discrimination cases against white male heteros), does not obviate the need for the law. In fact, to only offer protection to homosexuals or women, or Blacks, WOULD be discriminatory.

While uncommon, discrimination cases against the majority DO occur. See the Orleans Parrish District Attorney case for a very recent example.

NOTE to Niche: Your example is NOT theft. The government is not taking anything, nor is it receiving anything.