US House Approves Protections for Gay Workers

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/washington/08employ.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

November 8, 2007

House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — The House on Wednesday approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 but that opponents said would result in unnecessary lawsuits.

The bill, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, is the latest version of legislation that Democrats have pursued since 1974. Representatives Edward I. Koch and Bella Abzug of New York then sought to protect gay men and lesbians with a measure they introduced on the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the brawl between gay men and police officers at a bar in Greenwich Village that is widely viewed as the start of the American gay rights movement.

“On this proud day of the 110th Congress, we will chart a new direction for civil rights,” said Representative Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat and a gay rights advocate, in a speech before the vote. “On this proud day, the Congress will act to ensure that all Americans are granted equal rights in the work place.”

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and a longtime supporter of gay rights legislation, said he would move swiftly to introduce a similar measure in the Senate. Some Senate Republicans said that, if worded carefully, it would have a good chance of passing, perhaps early next year.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has said that she would be the lead co-sponsor of the Senate bill. Ms. Collins, in a statement, said that the House vote “provides important momentum” and that “there is growing support in the Senate for strengthening federal laws to protect American workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

President Bush threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill, but a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the administration would need to review recent changes before making a final decision. Few Democrats expect Mr. Bush to change his mind.

The House bill would make it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

While 19 states and Washington, D.C., have laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and many cities offer similar protections, federal law offers no such shield, though it does bar discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, disability and pregnancy.

In the House on Wednesday, 35 Republicans joined 200 Democrats voting for the bill, which was approved 235 to 184, perhaps reflecting polls showing that a plurality of Americans believe homosexuality should be accepted as an alternative lifestyle, though a majority still oppose same-sex marriage. Voting against the bill were 25 Democrats and 159 Republicans.

Among the Democrats opposed, many said the bill should have also outlawed discrimination based on gender identity.

And while the Democrats fell far short of the 280 votes that would be needed to override a presidential veto, many of them, including the majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, spoke about the vote in exuberant tones, calling it “historic” and “momentous.”
For more than 30 years, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation has been a cause of liberal Democrats, who have fought many partisan battles with Republicans but have always come up short. In 1996, the Senate came within one vote of passing a bill; the House did not vote on the bill that year.

The twist this year is that the measure has emerged as an example of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pragmatism in trying to make headway on leading issues by granting concessions, even at the risk of angering her party’s base.

To ensure passage of the bill, Ms. Pelosi and other Democrats, including Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who is openly gay, removed language granting protections to transsexual and transgender individuals by barring discrimination based on sexual identity, a move that infuriated gay rights groups.

The Democrats also carved out a blanket exemption for religious groups, drawing the ire of civil liberties advocates who argued that church-run hospitals, for instance, should not be permitted to discriminate against gay employees. The civil liberties groups wanted a narrow exemption for religious employers.

On the House floor, Ms. Pelosi acknowledged challenges. “History teaches us that progress on civil rights is never easy,” she said. “It is often marked by small and difficult steps.”

Ms. Pelosi did maintain the support of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in the country, even though it was disappointed that gender identity protections were not included in the bill.

“Today’s vote in the House sends a powerful message about equality to the country, and it’s a significant step forward for our community,” said Joe Solmonese, the group’s president.

Others were not so upbeat. “What should have been one of the most triumphant days in our movement’s history is not,” said Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “It’s one of very mixed reactions.”

But many longtime supporters of the legislation cheered its passage. “It’s wonderful,” said Mr. Koch, a former mayor of New York City. “Even though it is a vote that was delayed too long.”

Much of the debate Wednesday was taken up by Republicans complaining, somewhat oddly, that they could not hold a vote on a Democratic amendment to restore gender identity language.

Democrats suggested that these Republicans were not hoping to protect transsexuals from discrimination but to restore provisions to the bill that would have made it easier to rally opposition.

Representative Doc Hastings of Washington, who led the Republican effort to get a vote on the amendment, said he opposed the overall bill in part because many states already had similar laws and because he viewed it as intrusive. “I do not think it is the place of the federal government to legislate how each and every place of business operates,” Mr. Hastings said.

Other opponents said the law would result in spurious lawsuits.
“It would be impossible for employers to operate a business without having to worry about being accused of discriminating against someone based on their ‘perceived’ sexual orientation,” said Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, Republican of Florida, who raised two fingers on each hand to flash quotation marks over her head as she said “perceived.”

Mr. Kennedy, who is chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, issued a statement praising the House vote. He could introduce a measure identical to the House bill or a new version, which might restore language about gender identity.

Sure it'll be vetoed... but a great step. Hopefully the Senate follows suite!

[Flasch186]

Im sure Bubbawheels will veto it :)

[Toddzilla]

Im sure Bubbawheels will veto it :)That's the first thing I thought, too. His head (:mad:) probably wants to explode.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm mostly curious to see the list of 35 Republicans & 25 Dems who flipped on the party line on this one.

edit to add: I found the roll call vote easily enough, but none of the versions I've found so far have the party indicators included with them. And no way I can identify every single member by party from memory. Yeah, I know, I'm slipping.

[Flasch186]

shockingly enough I support the religious places right to be exclusionary. I do think that they should also not receive ANY federal funding at all, nor any tax exemption other than those given to normal religious sanctuaries and not those for anything else. If they want to be idiot ignorants then that is allowed in their own privacy too. am I wrong there?

[Toddzilla]

I'm mostly curious to see the list of 35 Republicans & 25 Dems who flipped on the party line on this one.

edit to add: I found the roll call vote easily enough, but none of the versions I've found so far have the party indicators included with them. And no way I can identify every single member by party from memory. Yeah, I know, I'm slipping.Here you go...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml

And a list of members:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

[Honolulu_Blue]

His head (:mad:) probably wants to explode.

This was my first thought.

[Toddzilla]

More info....

Most of the democratic NAY votes came from the deep south, with a few from NY.

The republican YEA votes came from all over the place, including my local representative Tom Davis.

Thanks, Tom!

[molson]

So if I pretend I'm gay, will this make it pretty much impossible for anyone to fire me?

I don't have any great knowledge about the practicalities of Civil Rights Employment discrimination legislation, but won't this make employers more likely to want to hire married (heterosexual) people, in fear of retaliatory lawsuits from people who turn out to be gay but also suck at their job?

People who oppose stuff like this aren't necessarily anti-gay. I know people like to split the world up into liberal v. conservative on those kind of grounds, but sometimes there's just the matter of how well something is actually going to work, not just that it has a title that sounds nice.

[ISiddiqui]

So if I pretend I'm gay, will this make it pretty much impossible for anyone to fire me?

Err.. no. Unless you think people pretending to be Jewish can never be fired (religion is protected as well).

You have to prove it was because of your sexual orientation you were fired or discriminated against. It's very fact intensive.

[Warhammer]

While I completely support not firing someone just because their gay, I'm not sure I agree with expanding this law. I've seen this law abused by people that are covered. Heck, at my wife's work, they have a girl there that dares them to fire her because she has a cousin that is a lawyer in town. So she doesn't do squat, but everyone is afraid to fire her because of the potential lawsuit.

[molson]

You have to prove it was because of your sexual orientation you were fired or discriminated against. It's very fact intensive.

Does that ever happen? (As I said, I don't know much about this stuff). I mean, an employer isn't going to send someone a letter saying they're fired because they're gay or jewish.

[ISiddiqui]

Does that ever happen? (As I said, I don't know much about this stuff). I mean, an employer isn't going to send someone a letter saying they're fired because they're gay or jewish.

No, but the employer could be making Jewish jokes or make an offhand remark about the guy's Jewish background (bosses can be COMPLETE idiots at times).

[flere-imsaho]

I assume this continues to be pretty meaningless in "Work-at-will" states, correct? As long as the employer isn't stupid enough to give a verboten reason for firing someone, they can still fire you for no reason.

[Toddzilla]

So if I pretend I'm gay, will this make it pretty much impossible for anyone to fire me? No, it would make it illegal for you to be fired for being gay (or in this case, for being perceived as gay).

It's a big difference, a pretty obvious one IMHO, but one that some people seem to purposefully fret over in order to make such legislation appear to be way to broad or way to powerful than it actually is.

[Warhammer]

I assume this continues to be pretty meaningless in "Work-at-will" states, correct? As long as the employer isn't stupid enough to give a verboten reason for firing someone, they can still fire you for no reason.

You're right, but that doesn't mean that there still won't be a lawsuit forthcoming which will cost money to defend against.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here you go...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1057.xml


I found that earlier but totally missed the note at the top about "(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)"

Lemme see here, GOP yes votes included:
Biggert - IL
Bono - CA
Campbell - CA
Castle - DE
Davis - VA
Dent - PA
Diaz-Balart.L - FL
Diaz-Balart.M - FL
Dreier - CA
English - PA
Flake - AZ
Fossella - NY
Freilinghuysen - NJ
Gerlach - PA
Gilchrest - MD
Hobson - OH
Kirk - Il
Knollenberg - MI
Kuhl - NY
LoBiondo - NJ
McCotter - MI
McCrery - LA
McHugh - NY
Miller - MI
Platts - PA
Porter - NV
Pryce - OH
Ramstad - MN
Reichert - WA
Ros-Lehtinen - FL
Ryan - WI
Saxton - NJ
Shays - CT
Tiberi - OH
Walden - OR

[flere-imsaho]

You're right, but that doesn't mean that there still won't be a lawsuit forthcoming which will cost money to defend against.

The impact of these lawsuits is wildly overstated. Should such a lawsuit be forthcoming, assuming the termination was done correctly, it should not be too difficult to a) win the lawsuit, assuming the judge doesn't throw it out immediately and b) win/counter-sue for lawyer's fees.

Conversely, look at the (much more common) flipside: employee gets fired for a reason like "she's a woman" or "he's gay". Without these protections, said employee has to find a good enough lawyer (or probably a law firm with sufficient resources) to prove that a) he/she was fired for this specific reason and b) that this reason is an unacceptable reason to fire someone. Of course, bear in mind that even with these protections, the terminated employee still has to prove that a) he/she was fired for this specific reason.

[st.cronin]

The impact of these lawsuits is wildly overstated. Should such a lawsuit be forthcoming, assuming the termination was done correctly, it should not be too difficult to a) win the lawsuit, assuming the judge doesn't throw it out immediately and b) win/counter-sue for lawyer's fees.

Conversely, look at the (much more common) flipside: employee gets fired for a reason like "she's a woman" or "he's gay". Without these protections, said employee has to find a good enough lawyer (or probably a law firm with sufficient resources) to prove that a) he/she was fired for this specific reason and b) that this reason is an unacceptable reason to fire someone. Of course, bear in mind that even with these protections, the terminated employee still has to prove that a) he/she was fired for this specific reason.

I guess the person would still have to hire a lawyer, too.

[Warhammer]

The impact of these lawsuits is wildly overstated. Should such a lawsuit be forthcoming, assuming the termination was done correctly, it should not be too difficult to a) win the lawsuit, assuming the judge doesn't throw it out immediately and b) win/counter-sue for lawyer's fees.

Conversely, look at the (much more common) flipside: employee gets fired for a reason like "she's a woman" or "he's gay". Without these protections, said employee has to find a good enough lawyer (or probably a law firm with sufficient resources) to prove that a) he/she was fired for this specific reason and b) that this reason is an unacceptable reason to fire someone. Of course, bear in mind that even with these protections, the terminated employee still has to prove that a) he/she was fired for this specific reason.

But this is still a reason why many companies do not fire protected workers even if they have cause. The threat of a lawsuit, having to hire a lawyer, the time needed by the powers that be to talk to the lawyer, etc., all of these factor in to cause companies to retain these people. The result is regardless of the law, the companies will require documentation to fire someone, even though most managers are unwilling to do this because they will appear to be a bad guy.

I've seen this at one company I worked for, where they only fired the employee after I pointed out how much they would save on warranty costs, and also at my wife's work which I mentioned previously.

[flere-imsaho]

I guess the person would still have to hire a lawyer, too.

I think that goes without saying. Plus, unless it's cut-and-dry (i.e. an email with a phrase like "I'm firing him because he's gay") it's probably not just a lawyer they need to hire but, again, a law firm with sufficient resources to get the evidence necessary to win the case.

[Flasch186]

So if I pretend I'm gay, will this make it pretty much impossible for anyone to fire me?

I don't have any great knowledge about the practicalities of Civil Rights Employment discrimination legislation, but won't this make employers more likely to want to hire married (heterosexual) people, in fear of retaliatory lawsuits from people who turn out to be gay but also suck at their job?

People who oppose stuff like this aren't necessarily anti-gay. I know people like to split the world up into liberal v. conservative on those kind of grounds, but sometimes there's just the matter of how well something is actually going to work, not just that it has a title that sounds nice.

you should have to make them prove it in front of a board....blech.

[flere-imsaho]

But this is still a reason why many companies do not fire protected workers even if they have cause. The threat of a lawsuit, having to hire a lawyer, the time needed by the powers that be to talk to the lawyer, etc., all of these factor in to cause companies to retain these people.

I don't disagree with your example, I think you're just overstating the frequency of its occurrence. Employment law is a mature part of the legal industry and this particular niche is well-served by lawyers and firms who can quickly help a small company defend against a case like this and recoup damages/fees. All but the very smallest of small companies have the necessary resources to take on this representation.

The result is regardless of the law, the companies will require documentation to fire someone, even though most managers are unwilling to do this because they will appear to be a bad guy.

1. I'm not sure I see the problem inherent with companies requiring documentation in order to fire someone. Sounds like due diligence to me. Having said that, I'm all for states being "Work-at-will", since I understand that sometimes you just need to get rid of someone who isn't working out. Plus, "Work-at-will" offers a number of advantages to employees, which aren't often talked about.

2. Managers who are unwilling to walk over to HR and say "This guy needs to go, how do we start a process to terminate him" have nothing to do with this law and everything to do with not being capable of being managers. Getting rid of underperforming (or, in your case, nonperforming) employees is part of being a manager. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't be a manager.

I've seen this at one company I worked for, where they only fired the employee after I pointed out how much they would save on warranty costs, and also at my wife's work which I mentioned previously.

Well, that's kind of my point. Removing underperforming/nonperforming employees is part of running a business. All this law does is ensure that people aren't fired for reasons unrelated to performance. The anecdotes you mention, in reality, have nothing to do with this law. In the first, the problem was that those running the business were unaware of the impact of the employee's nonperformance. That's a business issue, not a legal issue. In the anecdote of your wife's company, the issue is that management doesn't have the stones to call up an employment lawyer/HR specialist and start a termination process for nonperformance. Frankly, if I saw that, I'd be inclined to ask what other things they don't have the stones for.

[molson]

But this is still a reason why many companies do not fire protected workers even if they have cause.

Or hire in the first place.

The law has made it a potential hassle to hire a minority. However true, it's the perception. Now gays are on the list.

If there's two equal candidates - one married, one in his 40s and single, you might as well hire the married guy. Right or wrong, people will think like that. People don't have faith in the government, or legal system. And if someone's actually known to be in a committed gay relationship, forget it. This only adds to the discrimination, it will just occur in hiring.

[larrymcg421]

Or hire in the first place.

The law has made it a potential hassle to hire a minority. However true, it's the perception. Now gays are on the list.

If there's two equal candidates - one married, one in his 40s and single, you might as well hire the married guy. Right or wrong, people will think like that. People don't have faith in the government, or legal system. And if someone's actually known to be in a committed gay relationship, forget it. This only adds to the discrimination, it will just occur in hiring.


In Atlanta, the married person has just as much chance to be gay as the single person.

[ISiddiqui]

The law has made it a potential hassle to hire a minority. However true, it's the perception.

Perhaps in some places, but not that I'm aware of. I don't see employers shying away from hiring blacks or women because they are afraid they'll get in legal trouble when they have to fire them.

[larrymcg421]

To be serious (not that my previous comment was inaccurate), the reality is that hiring and firing are done by different people.

The HR people often conducting hiring processes pride themselves on getting diverse candidates and certainly aren't going to show someone the door for fear of a lawsuit,e specially because they expect the organization to not run things in a half-assed manner.

The firing is done later by mid-managers who have many reasons for disliking an employee. Sometimes this is expressd in insults and epithets and in GA if a gay person was fired after this, there was no protection whatsoever.

This law will make them think twice aout taking that course of action.

[astrosfan64]

To many laws in this country. We don't need another useless law.

Hey lets worry about gay rights, instead of tackling important issues like immigration, borders, budgets etc...

I really don't think they need a law that says gays are protected.

I really want a law that says white men can't be dicrimated against.

We have a law for woman of all races, we have a law religions, now sexual preferences and of course we have a law for minority men.

Where is the law for White Men? If you group all those laws together, the white men are way outnumbered.

This is all tounge and check btw....

[Telle]

Well actually, white men are protected. The law regarding that is that you cannot discriminate based on race or sex.. so if he is discriminated against for being white or for being male, then he is protected under the law.

[chesapeake]

The law has made it a potential hassle to hire a minority. However true, it's the perception. Now gays are on the list.

If that were true, wouldn't the gay community then oppose the bill because it would make it harder for them to find jobs? Wouldn't the African-American community be clamoring for repeal?

[molson]

If that were true, wouldn't the gay community then oppose the bill because it would make it harder for them to find jobs? Wouldn't the African-American community be clamoring for repeal?

I'm not a member of either group, but I'd guess that some would be against this (just as some are against affirmative action).

To me, these kind of laws just kind of imply that something's wrong with the people in these groups. I mean, haven't we reached a point where if a company doesn't want to hire blacks, jews, and gays (and will fire anyone that they learn is gay), it'll just a be a really shitty company that won't be in business long?

If Walmart or IBM is clearly utilizing discriminatory hiring, haven't we reached the point where our society will punish them with their bottom line?

It'd be interested to see a study or some kind of numbers on how many Civil Rights Employment lawsuits have been filed, how many were dismissed, how many were resolved (and we'd never know this number, but how many were resolved by innocent companies throwing money at the potential bad publicity to make it go away), and how many ended with a judgment against the company.

[Easy Mac]

at least wayne brady will always have his job protected

[Klinglerware]

To many laws in this country. We don't need another useless law.

Hey lets worry about gay rights, instead of tackling important issues like immigration, borders, budgets etc...

I really don't think they need a law that says gays are protected.

I really want a law that says white men can't be dicrimated against.

We have a law for woman of all races, we have a law religions, now sexual preferences and of course we have a law for minority men.

Where is the law for White Men? If you group all those laws together, the white men are way outnumbered.

This is all tounge and check btw....

The law states "discrimination on the basis of race" not "discrimination of minorities". White dudes are covered...


EDIT: looks like Telle beat me to it...

[chesapeake]

To me, these kind of laws just kind of imply that something's wrong with the people in these groups. I mean, haven't we reached a point where if a company doesn't want to hire blacks, jews, and gays (and will fire anyone that they learn is gay), it'll just a be a really shitty company that won't be in business long?

These laws imply nothing of the sort. What they imply is that there are companies out there that do not want to hire blacks, Jews, Muslims, gays, women and a whole host of other minorities out there. And they imply that because it is true.

Most people don't work for GigantaCorp, who might make big news when a lawsuit is filed against them. Which is why you see civil rights problems more in medium- to small-sized businesses that travel under the radar of the EEOC or the press.

[JonInMiddleGA]

people will think like that.

Not "will" ... "do".

If all else is equal on two candidates, going with the one least likely to create a problem is just common sense.

[JPhillips]

But when are things "equal" between two people? I don't think you ever get to a point where a thing like the possibility of a future lawsuit is the deciding factor in hiring. When I've hired there has always been some qualification or quality that led me to chose one person over the other.

I also don't like the "opposite world" arguments that get played out when people don't want to admit they oppose something. I generally don't believe that people who say things like employment anti-discrimination laws will lead to more discrimination really have the best intrerests in mind of those being discriminated against.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think you ever get to a point where a thing like the possibility of a future lawsuit is the deciding factor in hiring.

Then obviously you haven't worked for any of the companies I've worked for. Potential legal issues down the road have not only been a common concern but indeed at one company (the largest of the bunch) had pretty much become a top priority when considering candidates. Potential issues stemming from eventual dismissals was far and away the number one priority item when it came to managerial training and there was most definitely an understanding that if you hired a minority you better be damned sure you weren't ever going to have to fire them. And since you never really know for sure that you won't have to fire someone ...

Meanwhile, I don't believe you actually think I have any problem stating that I categorically oppose this particular piece of bad legislation. Then again, I do not believe and have never believed that the government should ever be involved in determining the hiring practices of a private company, that's a belief that long predates this particular bill.

[molson]

But when are things "equal" between two people? I don't think you ever get to a point where a thing like the possibility of a future lawsuit is the deciding factor in hiring. When I've hired there has always been some qualification or quality that led me to chose one person over the other.



This is why these laws seem a little silly to me. It's easy enough to hire who you want, no matter what the reason.



I also don't like the "opposite world" arguments that get played out when people don't want to admit they oppose something. I generally don't believe that people who say things like employment anti-discrimination laws will lead to more discrimination really have the best intrerests in mind of those being discriminated against.

This is just absolutely wrong, and was my real first point in posting in this thread.

It's smart, from an argument perspective, to boil something town to its simplest essence, in such a way that no reasonable person could disagree. This is very, very, common in politics today. You're against this particular gay rights legislation? You must hate gays. You're against the government spending billions of dollars on wasteful programs? You must hate poor people. You believe in a system of economics that involves lower taxes? You must put business over people.

That's just crap. Things are more complicated than that. If weighing all those factors, you still feel that particular tax or law is a beneficial thing our society, fine. But everyone who disagrees with you isn't a horrible person.

There's no real analysis anymore, you just need a couple of buzz words and people will shuffle out to their blue or red ideals. "Gay" - I don't need to say anymore about the legislation or the law, I know where everyone stands. "Race" - same thing.

[14ers]

The House bill would make it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.” Finally, I will no longer be forced to hide my beastiality! I wonder if this means my sheep will now be covered under my health plan?


I can't wait till this years Christmas party.;)



I wonder if this new law will also protect my brother the pedophile? He has always had to hide the fact that he likes having sex with small children from his employers.

[larrymcg421]

Finally, I will no longer be forced to hide my beastiality! I wonder if this means my sheep will now be covered under my health plan?


I can't wait till this years Christmas party.;)



I wonder if this new law will also protect my brother the pedophile? He has always had to hide the fact that he likes having sex with small children from his employers.

:rolleyes:

[JPhillips]

Jon: No, I haven't worked for the companies you work for. When I've hired it's been hard enough to find a great candidate that I would never dream of changing that decision based on a potential lawsuit from a potential firing. I'm completely aware of the kinds of manager training you're talking about and have been through some, but in my experience I don't think much hiring is decided by what is best if they get fired and if they would sue.

And yes, I understand that you're against this legislation for reasons that have nothing to do with helping advance gay equality. I disagree, but I don't have any doubt about where you stand.

[JPhillips]

This is why these laws seem a little silly to me. It's easy enough to hire who you want, no matter what the reason.



This is just absolutely wrong, and was my real first point in posting in this thread.

It's smart, from an argument perspective, to boil something town to its simplest essence, in such a way that no reasonable person could disagree. This is very, very, common in politics today. You're against this particular gay rights legislation? You must hate gays. You're against the government spending billions of dollars on wasteful programs? You must hate poor people. You believe in a system of economics that involves lower taxes? You must put business over people.

That's just crap. Things are more complicated than that. If weighing all those factors, you still feel that particular tax or law is a beneficial thing our society, fine. But everyone who disagrees with you isn't a horrible person.

There's no real analysis anymore, you just need a couple of buzz words and people will shuffle out to their blue or red ideals. "Gay" - I don't need to say anymore about the legislation or the law, I know where everyone stands. "Race" - same thing.

I'm not syaing you hate all gays. I'm saying that arguing that anti-discrimination laws for gays leads to more discrimination isn't based in any facts, but is more likely a way to appear more gay friendly than arguing that the legislation is crap.

I have no idea what your thoughts are about gays, but I don't believe that your primary concern with this legislation is that it will hinder the cause of gay equality.

[flere-imsaho]

Potential legal issues down the road have not only been a common concern but indeed at one company (the largest of the bunch) had pretty much become a top priority when considering candidates.

No offense Jon, but I find this incredibly hard to believe. I've worked for 9 organizations, from small companies to universities to Fortune 500 corporations, and I have never found these "potential legal issues" to be a "common concern" and certainly not a "top priority when considering candidates." I don't know a ton about your background, but have your experiences been limited to a particular niche industry or locality where there's more of a prevalence for this kind of thing?

Potential issues stemming from eventual dismissals was far and away the number one priority item when it came to managerial training

This is very common in all managerial training, though. Effective hiring and firing are very important concepts for managers to understand, for the health of the business.

and there was most definitely an understanding that if you hired a minority you better be damned sure you weren't ever going to have to fire them.

Again, I think your experiences are not the norm. They certainly don't mirror my experiences or anyone else I know professionally or personally. In fact, the closest I ever came to experiencing something approaching this was at a university, and the guy we were trying to fire (and finally did so, after following all the proper steps) was a white guy! :D

[chesapeake]

Finally, I will no longer be forced to hide my beastiality! I wonder if this means my sheep will now be covered under my health plan?

I wonder if this new law will also protect my brother the pedophile? He has always had to hide the fact that he likes having sex with small children from his employers.

I'm sorry that you appear to believe that these heinous criminal acts against defenseless victims are the equivalent of two consenting adults wanting to live and love the way they choose.

I guess this is for all those out there who don't think gay people face discrimination and hostility every day.

[molson]

I have no idea what your thoughts are about gays, but I don't believe that your primary concern with this legislation is that it will hinder the cause of gay equality.

Sort of. If I belived this legislation would have a tremendous effect on gay equality, I'd be all for it. But I don't. I feel like the effect would be very limited, and it would be countered by a negative impact that makes it undesirable overall in my eyes.

So I'm not using a pure "oppositte world" view. I just think that any positive impact is first neutered (at least somewhat) by greater reluctance to hire gays.

That limited positive impact that remains (if any) then has to compete with the negative impact of numerous frivilous lawsuits, an antimosity towards gays in the workplace (when the perception, or reality, is that they are keeping their jobs only out of fear of legal retaliation), and innocent companies having to spend legal defense funds and settlement money to make the problem go away.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No offense Jon, but I find this incredibly hard to believe.

Hey, I find it rather difficult to fathom how anyone can support this sort of legislation ... but that doesn't make it less true ;)

The industries in question were broadcasting & advertising. While somewhat related industries, the scope of the companies I worked with/for was different enough that there was very little resemblence between the two in these cases (to illustrate the size difference, more employees at one agency than at all the radio stations combined).

Effective hiring and firing are very important concepts for managers to understand, for the health of the business.

99% of the training I referred concerned avoiding lawsuits, and of particular focus were alleged discrimination lawsuits. If that's what you mean by "effective hiring and firing", then we're talking about the same thing.

As for geographic influence {shrug}. This is Atlanta/Atlanta metro, and we've discussed in the past how pretty much everything boils down to black & white here, so maybe that's an influence on it, I can't really say one way or the other.

[flere-imsaho]

As for geographic influence {shrug}. This is Atlanta/Atlanta metro, and we've discussed in the past how pretty much everything boils down to black & white here, so maybe that's an influence on it, I can't really say one way or the other.

Well, it must be, because my experience (in Illinois, Maine, Minnesota & California) isn't comparable at all. Guess Atlanta really is a different place.

[Warhammer]

I think you just answered yourself flere, Illinois, California, and Minnesota are all pretty liberal places.

I've been involved with personnel decisions at two companies that I have worked for. The issue of what would happen if we had to fire a person has come into play at both companies. Twice, there were steps taken by an employee that was fired to sue for wrongful termination. Regardless of the merit of the case, it still caused company resources to be used for frivolous matters.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Some of you are missing a very large point. Anti-discrimination laws not only cover the firing process, but also the hiring process. So, refusing to "hire" minorities because of potential discrimination lawsuits that may be filed upon them being fired is also discrimination and subjects the company to a lawsuit. Therefore, the argument that such laws actually hurt minorities in the hiring process (which intuitively may feel correct) is actually just incorrect.

In other words, if a minority comes in the door looking for a job, the same calculation that goes into deciding whether to hire them or not is the same calculation that goes into firing them once they have been hired. And the law applies equally the same.

If you have a company that has even a makeshift policy and/or internal discussions about not hiring someone in a protected class because they are in a protected class, they have already crossed the line into discrimination and subject to a successful lawsuit for failing to hire the person on that basis. For those anecdotal stories above where companies are doing that, they are already breaking the law.

So, no, I don't believe this law will make it difficult for gay people to get jobs.

The bottom line is that you can fire an at-will employee for no reason, just not a wrong reason. Speaking from experience, if you have an under-performing employee who has not been subject to discriminatory treatment in their job it is a very easy task to fire them and resist a lawsuit. Any company that would keep such an employee on for fear of a lawsuit is making very bad business decisions.

[molson]

So, refusing to "hire" minorities because of potential discrimination lawsuits that may be filed upon them being fired is also discrimination and subjects the company to a lawsuit.

While true, you're not going to prove it unless the employer is quite literally retarded. You'll have some straight white guy standing by that is just as qualified, and hiring him won't cause offense to anyone.

Firing is a whole other story.

[Schmidty]

Just saw this thread.

1. I'm glad that tax-payers are being given the same rights as others, even if it's in name only.

2. It's nice to see those pussies in congress focusing on important things like getting us the fuck out of Iraq, and doing proactive things to stimulate the economy.

I'm watching V for Vendetta right now. I hated it before, thinking of it as liberal propaganda, but I'm feeling it this time. Liberals want to take the guns out of our hands. What do I mean by this?

Even if we wanted to revolt, or rise up against this increasingly totalitarian government (a Democrat in office won't make any difference either - semantics), we'd be screwed. A) We can't arm ourselves well enough B) Even if we could, we'd be fucked because the government has access to weapons we can't even imagine.

In the past, such as the American Revolution, it was an even playing field weapons-wise. Since the mid-1900's, it hasn't even been close. The government owns us. We'd be totally annihilated if anyone rose up.

I have been having a few beverages (my mini once-a-month drinkathon), so this stuff wouldn't usually come out, but..........there it is. Probably poorly thought-out, incorrectly-based, and generally shitty, but oh well.

[Raiders Army]

So, Dr. House approved use of condoms for Gay Workers? Is that what this thread is about?

[ISiddiqui]

I have been having a few beverages

You don't say! ;)

[chesapeake]

Probably poorly thought-out, incorrectly-based, and generally shitty, but oh well.

I think it is important to be able to reach common ground when possible. We found it here! :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here is a positive effect of the alcohol.


I'm watching V for Vendetta right now. I hated it before, thinking of it as liberal propaganda, but I'm feeling it this time.

Now the below statement....
Even if we wanted to revolt, or rise up against this increasingly totalitarian government (a Democrat in office won't make any difference either - semantics).

This is...


... poorly thought-out, incorrectly-based...

So, all in all, could be worse.

Sparty on, Schmidty. Sparty on...

[Schmidty]

Good Lord, I'm an idiot. WTF was that????

[Izulde]

Good Lord, I'm an idiot. WTF was that????

That, son, was the Drunk Rider.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

While true, you're not going to prove it unless the employer is quite literally retarded. You'll have some straight white guy standing by that is just as qualified, and hiring him won't cause offense to anyone.

Firing is a whole other story.

Can't agree with you in most instances. For instance, in a firing decision, poor performance (if it happened) and lack of discriminatory treatment can easily be documented to provide a successful defense. In a hiring decision, all you got is a resume and an interview to prove your defense.

Now with that said, in terms of a one or two-time decision by an employer, you are correct. But if you are talking about a systematic decision making process to weed out hiring minorities (as has been argued here as to why gays won't get hired as much), it will show up. Having one white, heterosexual male standing by is a lot different than having 10 white, heterosexual males standing by as consecutively hires (especially when it's shown that resumes have been equal or lesser with minorities in many instances).

In addition, in any company of decent size, such a weeding out process would have to be an understanding between those making the hiring decisions. You get one of those former employees/managers to spill the beans, a casual email during the process, and a poor proportional representation of minorities in the employer's workforce, and you are home free as the plaintiff.

Now, if you mean hiring 5-10 straight consecutive white, heterosexual males in light of equal resumes is "retarded" then you are right. So, if you don't do that, well then in fact you then are opening up your hiring process to minorities, which is the goal of the legislation to begin with.

[clintl]

If there's two equal candidates - one married, one in his 40s and single, you might as well hire the married guy. Right or wrong, people will think like that. People don't have faith in the government, or legal system. And if someone's actually known to be in a committed gay relationship, forget it. This only adds to the discrimination, it will just occur in hiring.

You're not supposed to ask that kind of question in a job interview.

[molson]

You're not supposed to ask that kind of question in a job interview.

True. But I think there's always kind of game in the job interview process where the applicant tries to hide some information, and the employer tries to uncover it.

A perfect example is maternity leave - if you're a young, married woman, they're going to be concerned about you taking off for a while (and maybe not coming back). They can't ask you that, but they'll try to find out in other subtle ways.

In Idaho, being a Morman can be a obstacle to getting a job. An interviewer isn't going to be dumb enough to ask that up front, but I'm 100% aware of employers who "screen" resumes in other ways for clues. (And this also ties in with maternity leave, is it is assumed that a young Morman woman will only be in the workplace for a very, very brief time)