Do gays need special protection under the law?

[ivylass]

Orlando (http://www.staugustine.com/stories/112002/sta_1137159.shtml) is getting ready to vote today on whether to add homosexuality to the city's code of non-discrimination.

Now, as a married straight woman, I am not aware of any gays being discriminated against, but again, my world is probably limited in that area. Unless someone has come out to me, I probably don't know that they're gay and frankly, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I want to ask our gay Dopers...have you noticed any discrimination in jobs or housing because you were gay? Was it because you came out and told them you were gay, or was it something they found out later? Do you think homosexuality needs to be included in the same protection from discrimination as race and gender? Do you think it needs to be added "just in case" or because you have been a victim of discrimination?

[Skip]

I dunno about special protection, but perhaps equal protection needs to be enforced.

[Polycarp]

There's quite a lot of evidence on discrimination in employment and housing around, Ivy; I'll let one of the gay posters with quicker reference to it do some links. But I'm wholeheartedly for anti-discrimination laws of this sort, because of all the instances cited.

[ivylass]

See, that's just it. Maybe because I'm not gay, but I haven't heard of any incidents (at least in the Orlando area) where gays have been fired or denied apartments simply because they were gay. Am I clueless in this area?

Now, on the flip side, what if someone wants to hire only gays? Would I as a straight woman have the right to sue under the same guidelines?

[DocCathode]

As Skip points out, this would be equal protection. Similiar laws in other cities prohibit discrimination "on the basis of sexual orientation". While a person being fired due to heterosexuality seems unlikely, the law covers that as well.

Without such a law, it is legal to deny housing because you don't rent to gays, to reject a jog applicant because you don't hire queers, and to fire an employee after years of excellent work because you've discovered he's a faggot.

Considering that homosexuals cannot adopt children in Florida, I'd say that a fair amount of discrimination is going on.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by ivylass
Now, on the flip side, what if someone wants to hire only gays? Would I as a straight woman have the right to sue under the same guidelines?

This is the issue in a nutshell, ivylass. You already have that right - in almost all instances, current law prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.
If you were to walk into a job interview and the interviewer were to say, "I'm sure you're qualified, dear, but we don't like chicks working here," you could walk out the door and file suit that day (so, too, could a male sue if the employer said they don't hire guys). Gays want the same protection.

As a woman, do you think the current law I just stated to you provides you with "special" protection, or equal protection under the law?

Sua

[ivylass]

I think that would be equal protection under the law, Sua, but I'm not sure I would want to work for such a He-Man Woman Hater in that case.

But what if the employer only hires gays? Can I sue if he doesn't hire me because I'm straight? And doesn't an employer have a right to decide who works for him? Not hiring someone on the basis of their skin color is repugnant, I grant you, but does it still happen on such a wide scale that we need laws to protect us from unfair hiring practices? I would like to think we've progressed a bit from the Jim Crow days, and no one would even dream of not hiring a highly qualified candidate because they're black/female/gay/atheist whatever.

I admit, maybe I live in a little bubble, protected from the Mean World Out There. I would be interested in hearing from our gay Dopers on stories of discrimination in the workplace. And how they resolved such matters.

[minty green]

Originally posted by ivylass
But what if the employer only hires gays? Can I sue if he doesn't hire me because I'm straight?If discrimination based on sexual orientation were to be prohibited, the answer would obviously be yes. Right now, you can't. And doesn't an employer have a right to decide who works for him?Yes, but only so long as the decision is not based on race, sex, religion, etc. Not hiring someone on the basis of their skin color is repugnant, I grant you, but does it still happen on such a wide scale that we need laws to protect us from unfair hiring practices?That's not quite the proper question. The real question is how widespread it would be if those laws did not exist. In any event, there is more than enough discrimination out there to justify those laws. Believe me, there are plenty of successful race discrimination lawsuits, and it defies belief to surmise that they're all baseless.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by ivylass
But what if the employer only hires gays? Can I sue if he doesn't hire me because I'm straight?

Well currently, you can't (though there are ways around it), because discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited.
And doesn't an employer have a right to decide who works for him?
It's arguable. The determination of the law is that, because an employer (a) affects interstate commerce, which Congress has the authority to regulate, and (b) takes advantage of government-provided services, from roads to police protection, government has the right to some regulation of hiring.

Not hiring someone on the basis of their skin color is repugnant, I grant you, but does it still happen on such a wide scale that we need laws to protect us from unfair hiring practices?
This argument isn't a good one. If the murder rate in the U.S. dramatically plummeted to the point that there was only one murder a year (or a decade), would that mean we no longer need laws prohibiting murder?
I would like to think we've progressed a bit from the Jim Crow days, and no one would even dream of not hiring a highly qualified candidate because they're black/female/gay/atheist whatever. We've progressed a bit, but qualified candidates are constantly turned away because of race, gender, etc.

Sua

[ivylass]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
This argument isn't a good one. If the murder rate in the U.S. dramatically plummeted to the point that there was only one murder a year (or a decade), would that mean we no longer need laws prohibiting murder?

Ah, good point, Sua.

We've progressed a bit, but qualified candidates are constantly turned away because of race, gender, etc

Do you have a cite? I'm not asking you to back up your point, but it's been so long since I've seen any news stories on this issue, I would be interested to see some recent discrimination suits, no matter what the basis.

[David Simmons]

Diear [b]ivylass[/i], I think you are being serious and not facitious with this comment but it moved be to remember Mark Twains' comment about a similar statement: "Cold sarcasm like that revolts me."

The days of legal "Jim Crow" are over, but that nasty beast is still alive and well all over. If you doubt this just go to my old home town of Cherokee, IA, drop into the HY VEE Coffee Shop, sit back and listem. And I don't think Cherokee is a lot different from many areas in Manhattan, Los Angeles or even San Francisco.

[ivylass]

David I am being completely serious. There is a thread right now in IMHO about the rudest thing someone ever said, and one poster was asked to move because the man didn't want to sit next to a white person.

That type of thing disgusts me. I guess being the type of person I am (college educated, working in a professional position) I don't run into a lot of discrimination. I would like to think what goes on in your hometown coffee shop is the aberration, not the norm.

[asterion]

I'm all for equal protection under the law. I try--I admit, I do fail at times--to treat everyone I meet equally until I get to know them better. There should be no discrimination on any basis of race, religion, sexuality, etc. unless the job specifically requires it. The problem I have is that we seem to go from equal protection to affirmative action and quota systems, which cause the same problems they're supposed to fix, only in reverse.

[ivylass]

asterion, I think you raise a good point. I could start a thread on Title IX, but I'm not up to speed on all the points yet.

I guess until we see proof of discrimination against gays in the workplace and housing in Central Florida, my stance would be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now, if such proof is offered, then it would seem such a law is in order. But I don't know that any such proof has been submitted.

[MrVisible]

Okay, ivylass, I'm in the process of compiling some statistics and personal anecdotes about discrimination. But before I put them into a post, I have a question.

How much proof would you need that discrimination is taking place before you would take steps to insure that all people are being treated equally under the law?

Would one person having been denied a job or a house because of their sexual orientation be enough? Two? A hundred? A thousand? How many people would have to be jobless or homeless because of bigoted discrimination before you'd consider it reasonable to enact laws that put them on an equal footing with everyone else?

[ivylass]

Originally posted by MrVisible
Would one person having been denied a job or a house because of their sexual orientation be enough? Two? A hundred? A thousand? How many people would have to be jobless or homeless because of bigoted discrimination before you'd consider it reasonable to enact laws that put them on an equal footing with everyone else?

That's a good question, MrVisible. It think it would have to depend on the circumstances, whether it was a pattern of conduct or a misunderstanding, or whether other factors were in play. (Yes, the man who was fired was gay, but he also happened to call in sick every single Friday, that type of thing.)

I would be interested in your stats. Like I said, maybe in my world there isn't a lot of discrimination and therefore I believe it's not widespread. What have you encountered?

[MrVisible]

First of all, please keep in mind that in areas where there are no non-discrimination laws currently enacted, statistics are impossible to obtain. Reason being, why report discrimination when discrimination is perfectly legal?

So, here are the promised statistics:
A survey of 343 self-identified gay men and lesbians in Fayette County (Kentucky) found:

22.4% of the sample had received less than comparable service
in a restaurant,health club, etc.
7.6% had been denied a job
7.1% had been fired
7.0% had been denied housing
6.5% had been denied membership in a club or social group
6.2% had been denied a promotion
4.4% had been denied insurance
4.4% had been denied financial assistance
4.1% had been neglected or received delayed service by police or
emergency personnel
3.5% had faced discrimination in the military
3.2% had been denied educational opportunities
1.8% had been denied custody or visitation rights with their children
2.3% had been denied health care

Source: Lexington Fairness Campaign (http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1786/why.htm)

A survey of 191 employers revealed that 18% would fire, 27% would refuse to hire and 26% would refuse to promote a person they perceived to be lesbian, gay or bisexual.
--Brause, "Closed Doors: Sexual Orientation Bias in the Anchorage
Housing and Employment Markets," in "Identity Reports: Sexual
Orientation Bias in Alaska," Identity Incorporated, Anchorage,
Alaska, 1989.
A review of 21 surveys found that between 16% and 46% of survey respondents reported having experienced some form of discrimination in employment (in hiring, promotion, firing, or harassment)
--Badgett, Donelly, and Kibbe, "Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination
Against Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Surveys Across the United
States," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, 1992.

I found the Badgett study interesting, so I went and found some more of her work, which is tangentially germaine to this discussion:

This is from the ESPA STATE OF THE STATE REPORT ON LESBIAN AND GAY NEW YORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES (http://www.espany.org/stateofstate/1999/sosbody.html)
The preponderance of national data reveals that both gay men and lesbians earn less than their heterosexual counterparts.7/8

A common myth is that lesbians and gay men have more money than their heterosexual counterparts. On the contrary, while 65% of heterosexual men in a recent national survey earned less than $25,000 per year, 81% of gay men earned less than $25,000.9 And, according to several studies, "the preponderance of the national data reveals that both gay men and lesbians earn less than their heterosexual counterparts."7/8 While some data indicate that gay men and lesbians are more likely to have attended college or graduate school, their higher degree of education did not correlate with the same increases in income experienced by heterosexuals. The myth of wealthy lesbians and gay men appears to be based on biased marketing studies, and sometimes on purposeful misrepresentation by political extremists who seek to equate homosexuality with privilege.
The footnotes above refer to:
7) Badgett, M.V. Lee and King, Mary C., Lesbian and Gay Occupational Strategies. HomoEconomics: Capitalism, Community and Lesbian and Gay Life (1997)
8) Badgett, M.V. Lee, et al., Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men: Evidence from Surveys Across the United States, Civil Rights Project of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Unpublished (1992).

(M.V. Lee Badgett, Ph. D. is with the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. If you want to see a thorough exploration of this subject matter, you can download her book (http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/income.pdf) here. Beware: it's a 772k PDF download.)

So, how'm I doing? What more would you like?

[Mars Horizon]

Hi ivylass - I'm also Orlandoish (Winter Park), married, and work at a very "pro diversity" company that extends benefits and the like to same sex couples. All that to say that many people who would enjoy those benefits ;) work here. And many of those same folks are good friends of mine. I can say that based on their anecdotal evidence, there is discrimination against gays here in Central Florida. Witness the religious right's campaign against the law, which is a toothless ordinance (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket22112202nov22,0,519844.column) anyway - the maximum fine is $500 for a given violation :rolleyes:

So if there is no need for the law, and the maximum penalty is minimal, then, um.....why all the hoopla over approving it?

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by ivylass
That's a good question, MrVisible. It think it would have to depend on the circumstances, whether it was a pattern of conduct or a misunderstanding, or whether other factors were in play. (Yes, the man who was fired was gay, but he also happened to call in sick every single Friday, that type of thing.)


Ah yes, but if the organization is reasonably large there are no doubt other, non-gays who regularly leave early on Friday, call in sick on Mondays and take long lunches. Are they fired or are they told to go to Employee Assistance and given an opportunity to correct their behavior?

The general rule in discrimination cases, as I understand it, is that if you treat all employees alike, for example give no slack whatever on irregular work habits to anyone (one strike is out), then there is no discrimination.

[ivylass]

MrVisible that is pretty scary. I do have one question...how did employers know the employees were gay? I certainly didn't have to declare my sexual orientation when I was hired...whose business is it, anyway? Or it is "perception?" They discriminate because they think the employee is gay, whether or not it's true?

Mars, what have your friends experienced? Is it due to possible (mis)perception by the discriminator? And Mike Thomas' column is very interesting. Why pass an anti-discrimination law with no real impact? Is it a bone to throw to both sides, "Look we did something to protect you" and "You won't be hit with any huge fines, so business as usual." Why go through the motions?

I'm still interested in first hand accounts of discrimination from our gay Dopers. It looks like my perception of "We'll deal with people according to their abilities, not who they sleep with" is wrong. As a straight person I have no idea what it's like to be gay. I appreciate you guys taking the time to discuss this issue with me.

[ivylass]

Originally posted by David Simmons
Ah yes, but if the organization is reasonably large there are no doubt other, non-gays who regularly leave early on Friday, call in sick on Mondays and take long lunches. Are they fired or are they told to go to Employee Assistance and given an opportunity to correct their behavior?



Well, if they're fired as well, then there is no discrimination.

Likewise, if the gay person was given an opportunity to correct their behavior and they didn't, again, no discrimination.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by ivylass
MrVisible that is pretty scary. I do have one question...how did employers know the employees were gay? I certainly didn't have to declare my sexual orientation when I was hired...whose business is it, anyway?
ivylass, here is a list of questions that I would have to dodge, or lie in response to, in order to keep my sexual orientation a secret:

So, what did you do last night?
How was your Thanksgiving?
Got any plans for Christmas?
Who was that you were with at the theatre the other night?

...or, pretty much any aspect of my personal life that generally comes up around the office. You see, I spent last night at hanging out with my boyfriend. Thanksgiving was great; it was just me, my boyfriend and a couple of friends. Christmas, I might be going to see my boyfriend's family. And my boyfriend and I went to go see the Fantasticks the other night.

I don't go around yelling "I'm gay!" in a squealy falsetto; but I do keep a picture of my boyfriend (taken in front of the NYNY casino in Vegas) on my desk. I shouldn't have to keep a secret identity to keep my job.

So, how did employers know that employees were gay? Maybe one had a picture of her girlfriend on her desk. Maybe somebody told a co-worker about his weekend at Six Flags with his boyfriend. Maybe they wore a t-shirt with a rainbow triangle on it.

None of the above should be firing offenses. But as it stands, in many places, they are. And that's just not right.

[sleestak]

Originally posted by MrVisible
First of all, please keep in mind that in areas where there are no non-discrimination laws currently enacted, statistics are impossible to obtain. Reason being, why report discrimination when discrimination is perfectly legal?

So, here are the promised statistics:
A survey of 343 self-identified gay men and lesbians in Fayette County (Kentucky) found:

22.4% of the sample had received less than comparable service in a restaurant,health club, etc.
7.6% had been denied a job
7.1% had been fired
7.0% had been denied housing
6.5% had been denied membership in a club or social group
6.2% had been denied a promotion
4.4% had been denied insurance
4.4% had been denied financial assistance
4.1% had been neglected or received delayed service by police or emergency personnel
3.5% had faced discrimination in the military
3.2% had been denied educational opportunities
1.8% had been denied custody or visitation rights with their children
2.3% had been denied health care

I gotta call you on this little survey. In your cited survey %22 of gay people thought that they had substandard service in restaurants, health clubs, etc. Exactly how did the people in the restaurant or club know these people were gay? Were those people who responded to the survey wearing big hats that had "I Am Gay!" in Neon lights on their heads? I don't think so.

Also, do you think the cops and EMT's keep a list of Gay people and respond to emergencies involving Gays slower than they would to any other emergency? I don't think so.

This survey is meaningless. It is nothing more than what some people believe. There are no facts.

Next, MrVisible,

Ducking questions like "what did you do last night?" is pretty simple. Guess what, us straight people lie about it as well. If my boss asked that question do you think that I could be truthfull and say "Well, I did my girlfriend and it was great"?

You don't have to lie about your life, just don't go into details. Say your are hanging out with your family. Or you are just getting together with some friends. Simple questions only require simple answers.

A note, I think that Gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples.

Slee

[Lilairen]

You don't have to lie about your life, just don't go into details. Say your are hanging out with your family. Or you are just getting together with some friends. Simple questions only require simple answers.

"I went to the movies with my boyfriend" is a simple answer.

[sleestak]

Lilairen,

Yes, that is a simple answer. MrVisible believes that he has to keep his sexual preferences private. MrVisible thinks that if he came out he would lose his job. I hope that we live in a world where who you sleep with wouldn't matter when it came to your job. Regretablly we are not there yet.

My point is that most people fudge. You *DO NOT* need to bring your sexuality into the discussion. I wouldn't tell my Boss that I had sex with my girlfriend so why would MrVisible think that he has to bring his boyfriend into it? Keep private things private.

Slee

[gobear]

My point is that most people fudge. You *DO NOT* need to bring your sexuality into the discussion. I wouldn't tell my Boss that I had sex with my girlfriend so why would MrVisible think that he has to bring his boyfriend into it? Keep private things private

And do you realistically think that the only context in which straight people mention their SO;s is sex? Puh-leeze.

[Guinastasia]

BUT, sleestak, do you mention that your girlfriend and you went out to eat? Same difference.

:rolleyes:

[Lilairen]

If I can talk about my husband or my boyfriend without people batting an eye, I think MrVisible or gobear or whoever else should be able to talk about their boyfriends without people batting an eye. Should be able to have photos of their families on their desks. Should be able to say that they went out to a movie last night with their respective boyfriends without people getting wound up about it.

Should not be constrained from talking about their lives because someone foolishly thinks that a guy talking about going to that great new restaurant down on Main Street with his boyfriend is somehow sexual, even though a chick mentioning that she went to the same restaurant with her boyfriend is business as usual.

If the people in same-sex relationships aren't allowed to talk about their lives, fine. No photos of the spouse and kids on the desks. No "My wife wants me to pick up some milk on the way home." No sharing that that new ring is an engagement ring. And forget that great new restaurant on Main Street. That's bringing your sexuality into the discussion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Slee, There is no way in hell to circumnavigate thes kinds of questions forever, in fact, being vague, in and of itself, usually causes people to speculate.

I once had a very close friend who came out to me a few months into our friendship. He had no effeminate mannerisms or stereotypical traits, so it wasn't obvious to anyone who didn't already know. This guy had been through a series of about ten different jobs in three years. The reason was that no matter wher he worked, people would eventually find out he was gay nad the harrassment would start. (It was a very conservative community). He never said a word about his sexuality at work. When people asked him questions about his personal life, he gave deliberately vague non-answers, or tried to change the subject. People invariably pressed him for details which he would decline to give. This was all they ever needed to label him a "faggot."

The harrassment came from bosses as well as coworkers. If he walked into a room people would make remarks like "don't bend over, here comes _____." I heard a lot of this myself because I worked with him at one of these jobs. When I tried to stand up for him, it was decided that I must be a faggot as well, or why else would I hang out with one. I also started hearing snickering and stupid-ass remarks on the job. It was either kick somebody's ass or just quit, so I quit. My friend actually stayed a few more months until he couldn't take it anymore and tried to kill himself. It was not his first attempt.

Eventually he moved on to another job and went through the cycle all over again. Let me emphasize, this was a person who went to great pains to keep his sexuality a secret at work. I never once saw him make a pass at a coworker or even look at one in a sexual way (although it goes without saying that straight guys constantly leer at female coworker, make passes at them, and make crude comments about them when they're not listening).

It didn't matter. Someone eventually always found out. Supervisors who had been pleased with his job performance suddenly found reasons to give him unsatisfactory evaluations or find pretenses to fire him.

One amusing irony was that he told me, on at least one occasion, an especially homophobic supervisor, one who constantly complained about "faggots and dykes" during the shift, invited him into his office, locked the door, and told him he could keep his job in exchange for a blow job. My friend chose to walk out instead.

I know a lot of this stuff was illegal and so did he. I often urged him to bring formal complaints or lawsuits, but he did not want to endure a public outing in a courtroom.

About four years ago he finally succeeded in killing himself.

He had other problems as well. He suffered from clinical depression. He had been sexually abused as a child. He drank too much. He smoked too much. He was also one of the funniest, most caustic people I ever knew. He was extremely generous. He loved to buy people gifts, and went to a lot of trouble to get just the right thing. His one stereotypical trait was a love for interior decorating. He loved to look at houses, read decorating magazines and go antiquing. He was sometimes embarrassed that he was such a cliche in this regard.

He was a good person and a good friend. He had a right to earn a living without being harrassed. I believe that this pattern of discrimination at work aggravated his depression and contributed to his suicide. I know this is anecdotal. It is not a statistic, but it is one person I knew personally who suffered repeated discrimination at work, despite his attempts to keep his private life private.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by sleestak
I gotta call you on this little survey.

...
This survey is meaningless. It is nothing more than what some people believe. There are no facts.

Yeah, ya gotta call me. Of course, in calling me, you've just invalidated surveying as a means of gathering data; all surveys are just 'what some people believe.' ivylass wanted some information on how many people are discriminated against in the workplace; if you invalidate the input of the people in the workplace, whose word are you going to take for it?

As to your contention that I should hide my sexuality, and be in the closet in the workplace, well, why? Just answer that one. Why should I?

I'd also like to point out that when I fill out my life insurance form, the beneficiary is my boyfriend. My boyfriend is my emergency contact. We have the same phone number. I have direct deposit into a joint account; the check I have to provide for direct deposit has both our names on it, with the same address and phone number.

Also... if you're working with a group of people every day, and never share anything about your life, you're quickly seen as being aloof, secretive, suspicious, and 'not a team player.' So, that's a Career Limiting Move as well. Rock and a hard place, bub.

Diogenes, I'm so sorry for your loss. I wish yours was the only story like that I knew with that tragic an ending.

[sleestak]

I need to clear things up. My best friend is a woman named C. (I'll just call her C because I don't want to bring her into this) C is a lesbian. I have known that for years. She is, and has been, my best friend since I was 15. I don't care who people sleep with. It just doesn't matter to me. I'd die for C.

At the same time I see people posting 'surveys' like MrVisible and I just have to call it BS. He posted a 'survey' that stated %22 of gay people felt that they were given substandard service in restaurants and clubs. When I ask a simple question, like 'how in the hell did the waiter know you are gay?' there is no response.

I don't care who you sleep with. At the same flaunting your sexuality is probably not a good thing.

A comment about those who asked if I kissed my GF in public. The answer is no. I do not like public displays. Do it in your house.

Slee

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by sleestak
When I ask a simple question, like 'how in the hell did the waiter know you are gay?' there is no response.
Let's see... because I'm there with my boyfriend? Because the waiter caught us holding hands? Because we referred to 'our' dogs, or house, within earshot of the waitstaff? Because I just can't help smiling when I look at him?

I didn't answer because I thought you were being deliberately obtuse.
Originally posted by sleestak
I don't care who you sleep with. At the same flaunting your sexuality is probably not a good thing.
So, what constitutes flaunting my sexuality?

And, why? Why is flaunting my sexuality not a good thing?

As long as you're making up arbitrary rules for gay people, I may as well know why you feel we need to follow these rules.

Also, you ignored my paragraph about how insurance and HR issues complicate maintaining a 'secret gay identity' at work. Any more advice on how to nail my closet door shut?

Oh, and the 'some of my best friends are gay' thing kinda wears thin after a while. You might want to show your lesbian friend this thread, and see what she has to say about it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And like I said Slee it is virtually impossible to keep it a secret forever. people always find out anyway. What then?

[cuauhtemoc]

I seem to remember a thread where someone asked for anecdotes of specific incidences of discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians, and several dozen dopers responded with stories that left most of us slackjawed and/or in tears. ivylass, no offense, but you might be on to something with your suspicion that you "live in a bubble" .

[MrVisible]

The gaybashing thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=135183), as requested.

Be warned; it's not an easy read.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by MrVisible

The gaybashing thread, as requested.

Be warned; it's not an easy read.

I just read about half the thread and had to quit. :(

[lee]

Here in Chicagoland, a few years back, Reb Lobster fired an award winning manager for the sole reason that he was gay. IIRC the fact that he was gay came out due to some charity work on his part on his own time. We have laws here against firing people because of sexual orientation. Red Lobster's parent company not only admitted to firing him because he was gay, but tried to get our laws thrown out as un constitutional. I am still boycotting Red Lobster and Olive Garden as a result.

We do need non-discrimination laws. I am glad Cook county has them.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wow. Well, you'll never see me in Red Lobster again.

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by ivylass
I guess until we see proof of discrimination against gays in the workplace and housing in Central Florida, my stance would be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now, if such proof is offered, then it would seem such a law is in order. But I don't know that any such proof has been submitted.
Do you have any proof of discrimination in the workplace or housing based on national origin, religion, or marital status? Nodoby has to tell other people what country they're from, what their religion is, or if they're married, widowed, divorced, or single, yet those are all already included. Should the anti-discrimination laws be amended to omit such categories?

[Apos]

---Red Lobster's parent company not only admitted to firing him because he was gay, but tried to get our laws thrown out as un constitutional. I am still boycotting Red Lobster and Olive Garden as a result.---

Strange, for someone ostensibly concerned with equality, that you would exercise your right to choose the establishments you wish to deal with, but at the same time demand that establishments should have no such rights when choosing who they deal with. That I find your exercise lauable and theirs detestable hardly helps me resolve the contradiction in terms of equality or rights.

[kimera]

I have personally had difficulties in dealing with discrimination and the thing is, I am not technically lesbian. I am dating a biological man who is very feminine. Many times, the two of us have been mistaken for lesbians. When we have gone to clubs, resturants, etc together, we have noticed people giving us dirty looks and sometimes the waiters are rude or make horrible comments about us.

Right now I work as a cashier in a resturant. While my employers don't seem to mind my feminine boyfriend, I have had patrons make very rude coments to me. Mostly along the line of "you should just get a "real man"".

I do not allow my boyfriend to wear anything especially feminine when he comes by my work, as I am afraid that they would fire me for it.

[b]At the same time I see people posting 'surveys' like MrVisible and I just have to call it BS. He posted a 'survey' that stated %22 of gay people felt that they were given substandard service in restaurants and clubs. When I ask a simple question, like 'how in the hell did the waiter know you are gay?' there is no response. [b]

I have experienced discrimination because of simply holding hands with my boyfriend. I think I should have the basic rights to hold hands with my boyfriend in public and not get rude or nasty comments from ignorant people about it.

Right now, my one friend is finding especially difficult to get a job because she is transsexual. Alot of places have flat out told her that they won't hire transsexuals. And there is nothing she can do about it.

[Siege]

Sleestak, just to add to what you've already been told, a friend of mine was accused of "flaunting his homosexuality" to the extent that it endangered his job. What he did was exactly the sort of thing Mr. Visible mentioned. He referred to ordinary activities such as going out to dinner or mowing the lawn with his SO. Can you imagine never being able to refer to your wife or girlfriend without running the risk of people considering you immoral for having one?

Also, the health club statistic makes a certain amount of sense. I'm assuming two things. First, the way people find out someone's gay is through ordinary conversation about things like cooking, doing the dishes if one's in a committed a relationship or dating, if one isn't. Second, because Americans at any rate, are quite uptight about nudity and tend to assume there must be a sexual context, people who are so inclined will be even more uncomfortable about being in the same locker room with someone who's gay than they would be say, being in a business conference. Also, I don't know how much misinformation there is about AIDS today, but if people believe it's a predominantly gay disease and it's spread through contact with any body fluid, they could get freaked out about sharing exercise equipment which "that gay guy sweated on."

CJ

[ivylass]

I'm not sure flaunting anyone's sexuality, whether you're straight or gay, is appropriate in public.

BTW...the amendment passed (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-asecgayrights03120302dec03,0,7521796.story?coll=orl%2Dhome%2Dheadlines), 4-3.

Opponents said it will lead to other legislation designed to add legitimacy to gays, including domestic-partner benefits, same-sex marriage and the promotion of homosexuality in public schools.

Maybe that's another thread, but I don't understand the fear religious fundamentalists have about gays. Such irrational fear seems, well, irrational to me.

[JRDelirious]

ivylass: they're afraid it will cause fire to rain upon their city, and make mere innocent bystanders turn into pillars of salt.

[ivylass]

Originally posted by MrVisible
The gaybashing thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=135183), as requested.

Be warned; it's not an easy read.

Oh my God.

I am so ashamed of my earlier ignorance.

Please forgive me.

I'm so glad this amendment passed.

You know, I kept looking at the dates of these posts, thinking, "Well, this must have happened 10 years ago, surely things have changed by now."

:( :( :(

[Czarcasm]

ivyglass, as has been shown here, the definition of "flaunting" is not exactly set in stone. For some, it seems to be,"While it is alright for me to boast about the wild time I had last night at the bar, I find it abhorrent that you would even mention that fact that you have a life partner of the same sex."

[Liberal]

Okay, here goes. What about "equal protection" for employers under the association clause? (Not to mention ordinary ethics.)

[lee]

Originally posted by Apos

Strange, for someone ostensibly concerned with equality, that you would exercise your right to choose the establishments you wish to deal with, but at the same time demand that establishments should have no such rights when choosing who they deal with. That I find your exercise lauable and theirs detestable hardly helps me resolve the contradiction in terms of equality or rights.
IMHO IANAL:Freedom to associate is a personal right. Corporations do not have personal rights. Also, we provide businesses with a stable environment in which they can do business. In exchange, we ask that they conduct their business in certain ways, we ask that they not use certain unethical business practices such as bait & switch, as well as not discriminate in hiring/firing practices. If a corporation decides in needs to violate what certain locales decide is the law, they are free not to engage business there.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Okay, here goes. What about "equal protection" for employers under the association clause? (Not to mention ordinary ethics.)
I'm confused, Libertarian. What do employers need to be protected from? And what specific ethical considerations are you referring to?

[plnnr]

The SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case from Texas concerning the application of that state's laws against sodomy. In Texas, sodomy between adults of the same sex is against the law, but permissible for heterosexual copules. The issue to be decided is whether or not the law is discriminatory against homosexuals.

If ever there was an area where government interference was unwarranted, it is in the bedroom of two (or more) consenting adults.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by MrVisible
I'm confused, Libertarian. What do employers need to be protected from? And what specific ethical considerations are you referring to? Regarding your first question, they need to be protected from abuse of their right to freely and peacefully assemble and associate with whomever they wish (First Amendment). Otherwise, why not force inter-racial, same sex, and inter-generational associations among everyone else, and not just employers?

Regarding your second question, the primary ethical consideration, in my opinion, is that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way, with their rights defined by their property. And that includes people who are employers.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Let me emphasize, this was a person who went to great pains to keep his sexuality a secret at work. I never once saw him make a pass at a coworker or even look at one in a sexual way (although it goes without saying that straight guys constantly leer at female coworker, make passes at them, and make crude comments about them when they're not listening).


May I just say, what an incredibly bigoted statement. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go grope my secretary. :rolleyes:

Sua

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sua, I didn't say ALL straight men do it, but for Christ's sake, have you ever been on a construction site?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Sua, I didn't say ALL straight men do it, but for Christ's sake, have you ever been on a construction site?

And what percentage of straight males in the workforce work at construction sites? Is the conduct of construction workers representative of the conduct of straight males in other industries?

Or are you projecting the negative conduct of a tiny sample group onto all straight males? You would be the first to scream to the high heavens if such a projection was made on the basis of race, gender or creed - why do you think it is acceptable on the basis of sexual orientation?

Sua

[ivylass]

I don't work at a construction site. I can say the men and women at my work are extremely professional with each other.

[ElJeffe]

A few thoughts:

First of all, and it's sad that I need to say this to avoid being labeled a homophobe or bigot, but here goes: I have no problems with gay people, they shouldn't be discriminated against, gay-bashers are assholes, yadda yadda yadda.

Secondly, I have issues with this statement by Mr. Visible:

Oh, and the 'some of my best friends are gay' thing kinda wears thin after a while. You might want to show your lesbian friend this thread, and see what she has to say about it.


Why is it that disagreeing with the gay community on how to battle discrimination makes one a bigot? (Which is why I posted the disclaimer above, for the record.) As far as I can tell, sleestak said nothing that should be offensive to a gay person, or anyone else, unless said person is offended by disagreement and honest discourse. Which, unfortunately, seems often to be the case. Whether or not his assessment of the situation is accurate is immaterial; he doesn't appear to be a gay-basher, and implying that he is does nothing to further the discussion. Sorry for the mini-rant, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Thirdly, I agree with Libertarian in theory, if not in practice. Ideally, I should be able to hire and fire whoever I want for whatever reasons I choose. If I'm a bigot and don't want to hire any black folk, well, I'm an asshole, but that should be my right. However, all of this is in theory. In practice, sometimes I think such anti-discrimination laws may be a good idea, in that they can expedite the acceptance of blacks/women/jews/whatever into society, and thus protect the spirits and lives of large numbers of citizens in the process.

Fourthly, I am wary of antidiscrimination laws, due to their frequently unanticipated side effects. Anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty must admit that not everything to come out of the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to race and gender has been rosy. The unofficial (or, in some cases, official) quota systems that exist today are an atrocity, and an insult to those they're supposed to protect and assist. It must be realized that there is a significant possibility that any new additions to the anti-discrimination laws may result in just such a quota system in the future. Companies 20 years from now may fall over themselves making sure that at least 10% of their employees are gay. Hey, better make it 15%, just in case. I'm sure nobody wants this (okay, some people may, but they're odious opportunists of the worst sort).

Now, I'm reasonably certain that gays are more accepted today than blacks were, say, 60 years ago. Taking that survey that was posted at face value, it looks like about 20% of the gay population has experienced discrimination. Regrettable, yes, but I would bet that blacks 60 years ago would have been looking at a perecentage much closer to 100. So we need to ask ourselves a number of questions. Really, what fraction of gay people really experience discrimination? How much of this discrimination affects them in a meaningful sense that can be rectified via legislation? How long will it be before homosexuality is no longer really viewed in a negative light (at least by the vast majority of the population) if we sit back and do nothing? How long if we enact legislation? How likely is it that harmful quota systems will pop up in the future if we enact legislation? How much damage will these systems do? That's a lot of questions, and I don't know the answers. If I had to make a gut decision, I would choose to do nothing and let nature take its course, because I think it will be better in the long term, but my mind could easily be changed with applicable research.

One final note: I think that if action is taken, it should be on a per-state basis, rather than on a national level. Certainly, some states are going to have more problems with anti-gay discrimination than others, and because of the concerns I mentioned above, I don't think that all states are equally in need of such legislation. This is a pipe-dream, of course, because it *is* going to be nationalized as soon as the states start to make headway, and there's nothing that can be done about it.


Jeff

[MEBuckner]

So, ElJeffe, would you support repealing anti-discrimination laws based on marital status, national origin, or religion?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Sua

Or are you projecting the negative conduct of a tiny sample group onto all straight males? You would be the first to scream to the high heavens if such a projection was made on the basis of race, gender or creed - why do you think it is acceptable on the basis of sexual orientation?

Please, :rolleyes: it's not that much of a minority. Men are pigs. I should know, I AM one. The crudest, most degrading sexist (and homophobic) conversation I've probably ever heard was in the Navy, but I also heard it in a variety of other contexts in my carreer of crappy jobs, including as a line cook in various restauraunts, a landscaper, and a lifeguard. After I got my shit together, went to college and got a better quality of job, I didn't hear that stuff at work any more. I don't think it was all just a class difference. I suspect that it's a combination of being better educated (less ignorant) and just having the common sense not to expose those attitudes in the workplace.

There is no question that the experience of my friend (which was the point of my story) was that hitting on female coworkers was commonplace and accepted, but any perceived "cruising" by a gay man was met with overt hostility or even physical violence.

[Apos]

---Corporations do not have personal rights.---

Corporations are just people, people who voluntarily agree to contract out certain services with each other. Why do you think this means we should treat them differently than other people, demand more from them than we demand from, say, you? When people use money and run bussinesses, which at the very least _benefits_ a community, not hurts it, why do they suddenly deserve obligations and attacks that would be unacceptable if directed at anyone else?

---Also, we provide businesses with a stable environment in which they can do business. In exchange, we ask that they conduct their business in certain ways, we ask that they not use certain unethical business practices such as bait & switch, as well as not discriminate in hiring/firing practices.---

We also provide a stable environment in which individuals can live: therefore, "in exchange, we demand you not be gay and destroy the moral fiber of our community." See the problem? It's not such an easy matter to decide what should or should not be considered "unethical" in a legal sense, vs. our own personal moral judgements. I wouldn't think of enforcing my moral convictions via the law, and you should be thankful for that, as they would impose rather harsh obligations on all manner of people.
Some people, however, don't seem to allow that there might be a difference, that a society might be pluralistic instead of monistic.

I don't see how bait and switch is comparable to discrimination. In one case, defraud someone. In another, they don't want to associate with a certain type of person, as is within all of our right, however detestable we might find the sentiment.

---If a corporation decides in needs to violate what certain locales decide is the law, they are free not to engage business there.---

Well sure, we can make all sorts of laws. That's hardly the point.
You've handily switched from talking about what the law should be to simply demanding that people follow it. But as should be obvious from the case of the anti-sodomy law we are also discussing, simply having a law doesn't make the law right. Red Lobster is contesting the law. Is that law right or wrong? What does the logic of equal treatment under the law suggest to you?

[Apos]

---Companies 20 years from now may fall over themselves making sure that at least 10% of their employees are gay. Hey, better make it 15%, just in case.---

Never worry, once the treasured categories are more than two, it's a mathematical, not to mention a logistical, nightmare to balance out such quotas. Consider even just three simplified divisions: gender(M/F), race(B/W), sexuality (S/G). If there are quotas on all of them, a new hire to fix one category will almost certainly throw all the other balances out of whack. There is pretty much almost no way to get perfect real-time balance on all these different categories with real people in a limited qualified employee pool at any given time.

[ElJeffe]

So, ElJeffe, would you support repealing anti-discrimination laws based on marital status, national origin, or religion?


A very good question. Right now, I would have to say no. Why? I don't think that people are typically discriminated against that much based on those three factors. Therefore, I don't think the existence or lack thereof of laws protecting these traits is really going to have much effect on a large scale. However, I would imagine that there would be a serious backlash if the repeal of these laws was seriously suggested, as with any other anti-discrimination laws. Once you put a law like that in effect, there's not a chance in hell of ever getting it repealed, whether it should be or not.

Also, the three issues you mentioned aren't really hot-spots. You don't see pro-marriage rallies going on nationwide, or the National Coalition of Atheists marching on Washington in the same way that you see pro-minority or pro-gay groups. As such, I don't think that there are problematic quota systems based on religion or marital status like you see with race and gender. Thus, there's not too much incentive to recall the laws, as they aren't conspicuously harmful.

A more applicable question, perhaps, would be: If anti-discrimination laws based on marital status, national origin, and religion didn't exist, would I be in support of establishing them? To which I would answer: no.

Jeff

[MrVisible]

What I meant by "Oh, and the 'some of my best friends are gay' thing kinda wears thin after a while" was that I'm sick and tired of people who know a gay person thinking that that gives them license to spout off on a complex, sensitive subject that they may, in fact, be entirely ignorant of.

It's been my experience that the most damage to the cause of equal rights for gay people has come, not from the Fred Phelps' of the world, but from people who think that they're okay with gay people, have no problem with gay people, but aren't things okay the way they are? Why change them?

Saying you're okay with gay people, yada yada yada, and then coming up with really weak justifications for making sure we don't get equal protection under the law does not prove that you're okay with gay people.

[Apos]

---was that I'm sick and tired of people who know a gay person thinking that that gives them license to spout off on a complex, sensitive subject that they may, in fact, be entirely ignorant of.---

If you're sick and tired of it, then I've got a simple solution for soceity: don't make people feel like they have to prove they don't hate homosexuals just because they disagree with a particular political agenda you happen to hold that ostensibly helps homosexuals. Allow that people can have different opinions about politics and the legal system without slandering their characters.

You own post displays exactly this attitude: you simply ASSUME, all supposed debates cast to the wind, as true that your particular desires for action constitute the right way to acheive equal protection under the law, and that anyone who opposes them automatically brings into question wheter they are "okay with gay people" or whatever you call it.

[MrVisible]

Actually, this isn't about how to achieve equality under the law, Apos. Having legal recourse in cases of discrimination involving housing and employment are integral to being equal under the law. If you oppose that, doesn't that make you opposed to gays being equal under the law?

[Esprix]

ivylass, I'll just throw in that I have experienced discrimination at various jobs for my homosexuality (whether I was out or whether they perceived me to be, both have happened), and a dear friend was murdered because he was gay.

You have no idea how comforting it is to finally be working somewhere that not only doesn't discriminates, but actively promotes diversity in the workplace, including among the GLBT set.

Welcome to reality.

Esprix

[Polycarp]

Regarding your first question, they need to be protected from abuse of their right to freely and peacefully assemble and associate with whomever they wish (First Amendment). Otherwise, why not force inter-racial, same sex, and inter-generational associations among everyone else, and not just employers?

Regarding your second question, the primary ethical consideration, in my opinion, is that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way, with their rights defined by their property. And that includes people who are employers.

Lib, I tend to agree that personal rights vis-a-vis property have received short shrift during the late judicial activism with regard to other personal rights. But that statement bothers me.

I have no difficulty with "peaceful honest people" living their lives with minimal or no governmental interference. But what happens when the people are not peaceful or honest; when is it appropriate for government to intervene?

For example, to take the issue of freedom to associate as employer that you raise here, consider the possibility that you, I, and Sua Sponte own the only three widget factories in existence, and each have sufficient market penetration and brand-name recognition that it would be nearly impossible for Gaudere or Mr Visible to open a widget factory profitably. In addition, our hypothetical situation requires that the production of a widget requires skilled craftmanship which takes some time to produce. Under a libertarian scenario, are we justified in meeting (freedom of association) and jointly deciding what wages we will offer to our widgetmakers -- effectively creating a widget trust and setting a maximum salary in the industry, given the hypothetical situation? And if these wages are insufficient for our widgetmakers to support a home and family on, we three in this scenario being more interested in the profit line than in the concerns of our employees. I am, of course, setting up a heartless-capitalist scenario -- but such was, effectively, the case in several industries 100 years ago.

I'm not looking to pick a fight here, just to grasp what your principles would consider as proper recourse for the "downtrodden" widgetmakers and how they can have a legal recourse without violating our freedom as widget-magnates to run our businesses as we see fit. Such arguments are what doomed laissez-faire capitalism in the Progressive Era and the 1930s and produced the support that collective bargaining and antitrust laws historically enjoyed.

Actually, this isn't about how to achieve equality under the law, Apos. Having legal recourse in cases of discrimination involving housing and employment are integral to being equal under the law. If you oppose that, doesn't that make you opposed to gays being equal under the law?

No, not necessarily. While I personally strongly support having such legal recourse in place, I can see a libertarian scenario where discriminatory landlords and employers were sufficiently castigated by public opinion and the withdrawal of custom from them ("If you won't rent to the Black family, I'll move somewhere else" -- "Boycott Smith Industries; they fire Hispanics and gays" -- etc.) to achieve the desired result through market forces rather than via statutory means.

Which, of course, is why I structured my question to Lib in terms of a hypothetical oligopoly -- if you want a widget, you must deal with one of the three of us, on our terms, so boycotting would not work.

[DocCathode]

Some Ramblings-

Re-Flaunting
I hate when people say that. A heterosexual couple generally has to proceed grinding and moaning before people find their display of affection to be excessive and offensive. But two men holding hands and calling eachother pet names is flaunting it.

Anectdotes-
I've had two rather mild experiences with prejudice against homosexuals.

My mother owned and operated a day care center for over ten years. She various people over the years. When she hired an openly gay man, a large number of parents presented her with an ultimatum. Either she fired the man(who hadn't done anything wrong or improper, who was kind and nurturing, and who was better at the job than a number of women none of the parents ever complained about), or they would pull their children out of the center. My mother told them 'Either you trust my judgement and that I can run this center, or you don't trust me and you should take your kids somewhere else.' A few did.

The second happened just a few years ago. Clive Barker was going to be speaking and taking questions at a showing of Hellraiser and Lord Of Illusions. This was part of the annual gay and lesbian film festival. I called some friends, and we arranged to go. I made sure that I had the things I wanted autographed and wore my pink yarmulke. Then, I found out my friends hadn't bought tickets. I knew we wouldn't get in. How can a personal appearance by Clive Barker not be sold out? It wasn't. In fact, there were empty seats. I wondered whether Clive wasn't popular in the area or if people just stayed away because it was a gay film festival.
That weekend, Clive was signing his latest book at a local Tower. The line for the signing was literally 3 blocks long. I do not exaggerate in the slightest. These were fans of an openly gay man. They clearly liked his work, which often included gay men, and sex scenes involving two men. These people were open minded enough to like Clive and his books. But they were too bigotted to go to an event with the word gay in the title.


Originally posted by Apos
---Corporations do not have personal rights.--
Corporations are just people, people who voluntarily agree to contract out certain services with each other. Why do you think this means we should treat them differently than other people, demand more from them than we demand from, say, you? When people use money and run bussinesses, which at the very least _benefits_ a community, not hurts it, why do they suddenly deserve obligations and attacks that would be unacceptable if directed at anyone else?


IANA lawyer, however, corporation is a specific legal term that is not interchangable with business, or company. A corporation is a legal entity.

[Hamish]

This is one area I've been lucky in. I've never been fired from a job for being openly gay, and I've never had a problem with any of my employers.

I did have a problem with a government-run job-training program once that threatened to throw me out unless I took my volunteer experience peer-counselling gay kids off my résumé. I was also ordered to remove a red ribbon I was wearing. I refused both times. Fortunately, the other trainees supported me, and I weight of the law on my side.

In Canada, "non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" has been "permanently read into" our Charter of Rights and Freedoms by our Supreme Court. The way the Charter is worded is:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability (or sexual orientation).

You'll note it doesn't say "because they are gay" or "because they are female" or "because they are a racial minority." The wording guarantees equality, not special protection, so that on the off chance a man or a heterosexual suffers discrimination, the Charter will protect them, too.

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by ava
I have experienced discrimination because of simply holding hands with my [effeminate] boyfriend. I think I should have the basic rights to hold hands with my boyfriend in public and not get rude or nasty comments from ignorant people about it. I disagree. To adequately homogenize society so that everyone approved of homosexual relationships would require social engineering previously undreamed of. I do not support mandating or legislating morality. The Constitution protects rude and nasty comments(to a point).

What should not be protected is the right to discriminate based upon such prejudices. It should be legal for the manager of Red Lobster to make rude and nasty comments when they're passing you on the street. It should be illegal for them to make them on the job or to deny someone employment or benefits based upon such prejudices. I'm for alleviating the damages done to minority populations by prejudiced assholes in the majority, but I draw the line at legislating morality, for ANY group.

Enjoy,
Steven

[SuaSponte]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sua

Or are you projecting the negative conduct of a tiny sample group onto all straight males? You would be the first to scream to the high heavens if such a projection was made on the basis of race, gender or creed - why do you think it is acceptable on the basis of sexual orientation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please, it's not that much of a minority. Men are pigs. I should know, I AM one. [/QUOTE]
What that proves is that you are a pig. It does not prove that straight males are pigs in general, nor (to bring this back to your original bigoted assertion) that straight males act like pigs in the workplace.
Your personal piggishness is actually less substantial evidence than the piggishness of construction workers on the issue of whether men are pigs in the workplace, as you have made your sample pool even smaller.

The crudest, most degrading sexist (and homophobic) conversation I've probably ever heard was in the Navy, but I also heard it in a variety of other contexts in my carreer of crappy jobs, including as a line cook in various restauraunts, a landscaper, and a lifeguard. After I got my shit together, went to college and got a better quality of job, I didn't hear that stuff at work any more. I don't think it was all just a class difference. I suspect that it's a combination of being better educated (less ignorant) and just having the common sense not to expose those attitudes in the workplace.
So, in your current experience, the straight males you work with do not act like sexual harrassers. Yet you are comfortable declaring all men to be pigs and chronic sexual harrassers. Odd.

There is no question that the experience of my friend (which was the point of my story) was that hitting on female coworkers was commonplace and accepted, but any perceived "cruising" by a gay man was met with overt hostility or even physical violence.
Then he worked with sexual harrassers (or, given his emotional problems, was unable to accurately judge the nature of the conduct of his co-workers). Still has no impact on the general male of the species.

Sua

[ElJeffe]

You have no idea how comforting it is to finally be working somewhere that not only doesn't discriminates, but actively promotes diversity in the workplace, including among the GLBT set.


Thank you, Esprix, for highlighting the sorts of problems that non-discrimination laws (or even an overly zealous non-discrimination mentality) can lead to. "Actively promoting diversity" is a code-word for "quotas" - it means that the employer is hiring based on superficial characteristics not related to the job, rather than based solely on qualifications. No offense, but to take an example from my industry, I fail to see what a gay programmer can add to my company that a straight one can't, aside from the ability to stave off gay-rights groups that accuse my boss of being homophobic.

Any "diversity" that would benefit a company is likely to not be of the sort that these companies actively seek out. Diversity of thought, diversity of method - these are the sorts of diversity that will help a company out. Yet this is not what is sought. It's more desirable to have one black man, one hispanic man, one asian woman, and one gay man who all think identically than to have four white males who are extremely diverse in philosophy.

How saddening.


Jeff

[Esprix]

Um, excuse me, Jeff, but what the FUCK are you talking about? Please point out to me where I said there we had quotas. For the record, I work in the state of California - you know, that state that OUTLAWED Affirmative Action? Knee-jerking "diversity" into "quotas" is bullshit. Nice leap of "logic." :rolleyes:

Now, if you'd like some FACTS about what my employer does, I would consider discussing that with you, but you know how assuming makes such an ass out of you and... well, you get the picture.

Esprix

[Polycarp]

I fail to see what a gay programmer can add to my company that a straight one can't....

What kind of programming is going on at your company, Jeff, that the romantic life of the programmers enters into a job choice? I mean, I suppose I could see the value of having a heterosexual male programming an X-rated video game, having a better innate feel for what the (presumably heterosexual male) purchasers of the game would want (although there would be a niche market for a gay version of the game, too). But other than that, whether the programmer is straight, gay, celibate, or fond of consenting adult sheep in his private life doesn't sound like it qualifies as a legitimate employment criterion.

[ElJeffe]

Sorry if I misunderstood, Esprix, but I interpreted "actively promoting diversity" to include using "diversity" as a motivation in hiring practices, based on experience with other employers who "actively promoted diversity".

Certainly, if I was mistaken in applying my past experiences to your company in particular, I apologize, and would appreciate it if you enlightened me as to what, precisely, your company does. My original point still stands, though, as I have plenty of experience with commitments to "diversity", and all of the bullshit that entails.

Jeff

[ElJeffe]

What kind of programming is going on at your company, Jeff, that the romantic life of the programmers enters into a job choice?


Umm... none. That was the point. It *shouldn't* enter into the hiring decision, in any way, shape or form. If the best applicants always happen to be white, heterosexual males, then so be it. If they always happen to be gay, black, female midgits, hey - whatever.

Jeff

[MrVisible]

You're right, sexual orientation shouldn't enter into the hiring decision. So, how do you go about insuring that it doesn't, given that some human beings have prejudices against some groups of other human beings?

[ElJeffe]

You're right, sexual orientation shouldn't enter into the hiring decision. So, how do you go about insuring that it doesn't, given that some human beings have prejudices against some groups of other human beings?


How do you insure that it never happens? You don't. There's no possible way to make sure that discrimination never happens. You can only act to minimize it. So, how do you do that? Well, you first recognize that as people grow more accustomed to something, they will tend to view it in a less negative light. People didn't stop perceiving blacks as inferior because the government passed some laws. They stopped pereceiving blacks as inferior because as they were integrated into society, everybody saw that they were just people, too. The more society began to see them as people, rather than as black people, the less justification they had for prejudice. Gradually, racism dwindled, until it was the comparitively rare incidence it is today.

Now, gays are in a similar, though milder, version of where the blacks used to be. They are discriminated against, to some extent, though it's not as severe as it was around the era of the Civil Rights movement with racial minorities. So, we need to determine if the situation is severe enough to warrant explicit laws on the matter, with the risk that such laws may serve to continually remind people that gays are a "protected class". And we need to look to the long-term, as well. It's not just a matter of whether or not passing a law tomorrow will help gays tomorrow. It's a matter of whether or not a law passed tomorrow will still be helping gays in 5 years, or 10, or 20, and if not, to what extent will it be hurting them then? If such a law was hurting them, could it be repealed?

Sorry, MrVisible, but the question is not a trivial one, and it requires a non-trivial answer.


Jeff

[kimera]

Originally posted by Mtgman
I disagree.

What should not be protected is the right to discriminate based upon such prejudices. It should be legal for the manager of Red Lobster to make rude and nasty comments when they're passing you on the street. It should be illegal for them to make them on the job or to deny someone employment or benefits based upon such prejudices.

Did you completely ignore the rest of my post?

The fact that I get rude comments while just walking down the street shows that I can not expect work places to be tolerant of me either. I dare not be as open with my co-workers with my relationships because of my fear of being fired.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
Well, you first recognize that as people grow more accustomed to something, they will tend to view it in a less negative light. People didn't stop perceiving blacks as inferior because the government passed some laws. They stopped pereceiving blacks as inferior because as they were integrated into society, everybody saw that they were just people, too. The more society began to see them as people, rather than as black people, the less justification they had for prejudice. Gradually, racism dwindled, until it was the comparitively rare incidence it is today.
So, it's your contention that the changes in laws regarding black people had nothing to do with their current status in today's society? Really?

[ElJeffe]

So, it's your contention that the changes in laws regarding black people had nothing to do with their current status in today's society? Really?


No. It's my contention that the laws were indirectly, not directly, responsible for the changes in the public's perception of blacks and women. Do you really think that people stopped being prejudiced because the government told them to? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was a side effect of having been placed in close proximity, as a result of anti-discrimination laws? The laws were certainly a good thing, but they were the catalyst for change, not the reactant. Had those laws never been enacted, society would have eventually grown to accept minorities, just nowhere nearly as fast as it did.

For example, gays today witness much more acceptance today than they did, say, 50 years ago. This, without any anti-discrimination laws to come to their aid. Only more close contact, and less ignorance. You can't legislate cultural changes. You can only manipulate situations to try to induce them to happen on their own.


Jeff

[Guinastasia]

I couldn't make it through the gaybashing thread.

I don't think this law will stop prejudice. But perhaps it will allow people to at least be able to count on having a job and a home.

[Apos]

---Having legal recourse in cases of discrimination involving housing and employment are integral to being equal under the law.---

What sort of Orwellian mangle is this? It's only integral to being equal under the law if we hold that the law should force some people to associate with others in the first place! I'm not for disallowing gays to sue for discrimination in housing and employment when women can. If you are going to allow suits on discrimination at all, it might as well be open ended (i.e. I am able to perform the job/buy the house, the traits he claims are relevant to refusing me are, in reality, irrelevant, and the employer/seller has no right to fail to consider me...), not proffered only explicit groups, with other groups having to fight their way in.

What I'm taking a position against in this thread is people being able to sue for discrimination on those basises period. In my opinion, these are matters of association, to be combatted not by the coercion of the government, but by free responses of civil society.

---If you oppose that, doesn't that make you opposed to gays being equal under the law?---

No. Gays and bigots both should both have the right to associate with, work with, marry, have sex with, have kids with, etc. whomever they wish. Likewise should people who want, with their own powers of association, be able to boycott people (like bigots) with whom they disagree. I've never been anything BUT for homosexuals being equal under the law in all respects: and not just homosexuals. Everyone. The question is: "what laws?" And in my mind, the laws we are discussing are themselves violations of the equal protection principle.

[KellyM]

Actually, elJeffe, nondiscrimination laws usually become necessary when people start to question whether discrimination is appropriate. It's then that people who are (a) in a position to discriminate and (b) in favor of discrimination start doing it even more actively to ensure that the upstarts don't get anywhere.

The real problem is that far too many businesses are not willing to live up to the ethical (if not legal) obligation not to discriminate at all on irrelevant criteria. Since they are not willing to live up to this obligation and block (in most states) efforts to impose this obligation in law, we have to make do with imposing a more limited obligation. The simple fact is that very few businesses hire strictly on merit. Virtually all use some factor in addition to, or entirely in substitution to, merit, for hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.

Curiously enough, our President has fought long and hard this last session of Congress for the right to hire and fire employees of the Homeland Security Department without regard to merit. If this is what our government stands for, is it any wonder our private businesses are no better?

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by Apos
[B]---Having legal recourse in cases of discrimination involving housing and employment are integral to being equal under the law.---

What sort of Orwellian mangle is this? It's only integral to being equal under the law if we hold that the law should force some people to associate with others in the first place! If you want gay people to be equal under the law, and they're not currently, then we need to make sure that the laws reflect that by making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal when it comes to employment and housing.

Since laws are already in place to govern discrimination in housing and in the workplace, it seems to me your point about laws governing association is pretty much another debate altogether.

You want to change the way the whole government works, please feel free to start a thread about that. Meanwhile, I'm very much interested in ways to realistically change the existing system so as to address some of the specific problems that currently face real people. It's not very helpful to be constantly sidetracked into discussing utopian societal ideals.

[Northern Piper]

Good thread, ivylass. I'd like to respond to two of your earlier comments, if I may.Now, on the flip side, what if someone wants to hire only gays? Would I as a straight woman have the right to sue under the same guidelines?I took a look at the local news article you cited in your original post, and there's a funny thing about it - it goes on about how "gays and lesbians are a step closer to being added to the city's anti-discrimination protection laws", which does sound like the dread "special rights." But further down, where it mentions the actual amendment, it becomes clear that the by-law will prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation." To my understanding, that isn't a code for gays and lesbians; it's a prohibition on any discrimination based on sexual orientation, whether gay, lesbian, straight, bi, etc. In other words, it's an equal rights provision, protecting everyone.

So why does the paper refer to it as a gay and lesbian protection? It could be explained as sloppy reporting, but I doubt that. I would assume it's because the paper is making the realistic assessment that gays and lesbians are the ones who are most likely to need it. However, the bottom line is that it sounds like the amendment will provide equal protection.

By way of analogy, equal protection under the U.S. Constitution is more frequently invoked by minorities, but it's not restricted to that, as the Bakke case showed - a white guy challenging racial quotas on equal protection grounds.I'm not sure flaunting anyone's sexuality, whether you're straight or gay, is appropriate in public.Well, yes and no - it depends what "flaunting sexuality" means. If it means "doing it in the streets and scaring the horses" then yes, I would agree with that statement. But what about:


a school having a dance where young people are encouraged to come with girlfriends and boyfriends; buying an issue of Cosmo that says "Girls - 57 ways to drive him wild!" on the cover;
putting an advertisement in the local paper announcing an engagement, complete with a picture of the happy couple holding hands;
inviting all your friends and family for a public ceremony, in a church no less, declaring that you are entring into a permanent, committed sexual relationship (i.e. - getting married);
announcing to everyone in your office that your wife's pregnant.
All of these are very public declarations of sexual relationships and activities. If that's not "flaunting" when done by a straight couple, is it "flaunting" when done by a gay couple?

[Apos]

Do homosexuals need "special" protection under the law? No. Do they need equal protection? Yes.

But under WHAT sort of law seems a pretty darn relevant debate. You're talking about the justice of changing the law: so am I. Neither of us are sitting here simply being descriptive. Both of us are being normative with regards to the law.

---Meanwhile, I'm very much interested in ways to realistically change the existing system so as to address some of the specific problems that currently face real people.---

Heavens: perhaps you should accuse me of taking a too mechanistic a perspective as well? Or any other evasive jargon you can conjure up?
It's not entirely clear to me what you're "interested" in, but whatever it is, it's no more about realistic changes to help real people than what I'm talking about, unless you define "real people" as only those in certain politically approved groups, to the exclusion of all others. My question is: should employers, like employees already are, be able to decide who to associate with? You claim that this is out of the scope of this discussion. I respond: a demand for consistency based on equal treatment, rights, or obligation in _one_ area looks a little hypocritical when you aren't even willing to consider what consistency along that exact same principle might mean in other areas.

[Siege]

Apos, it can be difficult for the general public to know if a company discriminates and, if so, how to take action. Here are two examples.

Several years ago, a realtor in my city was sued for refusing to show rental apartments to black people. During the investigation which led to this lawsuit, two couples, one white, one black with identical income profiles asked to view apartments. The company had a consistent pattern of showing apartments to the white couple, but not the black couple. If it hadn't been for the lawsuit and the accompanying publicity, I know I wouldn't have known about it.

As a second example, I used to work for a company which made a component of computer chips. This company practiced discrimination based on race and sex. I know their product, but I have no way of knowing if it was used to build my home pc, and I can't know unless I tear it apart, and I might not know even then.

While I can see the argument that employers should be allowed to decide who they'll associate with, I'll also argue that, potential employees may have no way of knowing that employers are discriminatory until they're employed. Also, employees have fewer choices. I'm unemployed right now. If I get a job offer, I either have to take it or lose my unemployment benefits. In this job market, I'm afraid I literally cannot afford to let discriminatory practices be a factor; I wish I could. When I went to work for the company I mentioned earlier, I was doing temp work, and I was down to about $7.00 USD. Again, I had to work.

CJ

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by Apos My question is: should employers, like employees already are, be able to decide who to associate with?
I'd say that issue has already been decided; the presence of anti-discrimination legislation speaks volumes.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Apos
should employers, like employees already are, be able to decide who to associate with?
Obviously not, since when they had the right to do so they abused it egregiously, to the great harm of society.

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by ava
The fact that I get rude comments while just walking down the street shows that I can not expect work places to be tolerant of me either. I dare not be as open with my co-workers with my relationships because of my fear of being fired. This does not necessarially follow. It is possible to be a bigot in your personal life and still be professional and use nonprejudiced standards when in the workplace. The distinction here is between fair treatment and unfair treatment. I know a good number of people who hold prejudices against some groups but would not presume to use their authority in the framework of their profession to suit their own worldview. I also admit there are people who would and that is why I support fairness laws, but I do not support them applying to the public in general as the statement I objected to seemed to imply.

In short, I draw a distinction between bigotry of thought and bigotry of deed. One should be legal(as per free speech) and one should be illegal(as per ammendment XIV). This part of your postOriginally posted by ava
I think I should have the basic rights to hold hands with my boyfriend in public and not get rude or nasty comments from ignorant people about it.did not mention fair treatment in the workplace, in services you've paid a fair price for, or anything other than "public". I support the right of people to be rude or nasty in public as a subset of my support for free speech and freedom of expression. Those rights are more restricted in a professional context however, and they do not allow someone to use their prejudices to eliminate an otherwise qualified candidate for/from employment. Fair treatment applies to things like education, service in open resturants, employment practices, and other professional situations/services. If you were lamenting your lack of being treated civily in public then I sympathize, if you were suggesting action be taken to remedy it, then I disagree.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Liberal]

Poly wrote:

I have no difficulty with "peaceful honest people" living their lives with minimal or no governmental interference. But what happens when the people are not peaceful or honest; when is it appropriate for government to intervene?When they have initiated force or fraud.

-----

MrVisible wrote:

You're right, sexual orientation shouldn't enter into the hiring decision. So, how do you go about insuring that it doesn't, given that some human beings have prejudices against some groups of other human beings?Good question.

Suppose the worker pool at XYZ, Inc. is 100 people. How do you require that they hire at least one gay person without exercizing a prejudice against at least one straight person? Or vice-versa?

It's not very helpful to be constantly sidetracked into discussing utopian societal ideals.And yet, you're doing exactly that. As I showed above, you aren't dealing actually with the rights of individuals, but rather with the "rights" of groups. In doing so, you establish a utopian condition for someone in one group while establishing a distopian condition for someone in another group.

-----

KellyM wrote:

Obviously not, since when they had the right to do so they abused it egregiously, to the great harm of society.Can you connect your two independent clauses by some sort of reasoning?

[ElJeffe]

The real problem is that far too many businesses are not willing to live up to the ethical (if not legal) obligation not to discriminate at all on irrelevant criteria.


I'll agree that "too many" do, as any more than zero would be "too many". But "far too many"? I suppose that depends on your definition, but I'd like to see some numbers, myself.


Since they are not willing to live up to this obligation and block (in most states) efforts to impose this obligation in law, we have to make do with imposing a more limited obligation. The simple fact is that very few businesses hire strictly on merit. Virtually all use some factor in addition to, or entirely in substitution to, merit, for hiring, firing, and promotion decisions.


Many businesses likely oppose the changes in laws not so they can freely go around discriminating willy nilly, but so they don't have to worry about getting sued every time they hire or fire someone. Apple Computers, in particular, has a ridiculous paper trail attached to every employee, in part so that firing people can be done without fear of litigation.


Curiously enough, our President has fought long and hard this last session of Congress for the right to hire and fire employees of the Homeland Security Department without regard to merit. If this is what our government stands for, is it any wonder our private businesses are no better?


Umm... huh? I thought he was fighting to divorce the HSD from the labor unions, specifically because labor unions make it more difficult to hire and fire based solely on merit. You're telling me that the government is actively seeking to make sure that employees are incompetent? Do you have an iota of evidence to back that up?

Jeff

[Apos]

---Again, I had to work.---

I guess this is one area of difference between us that makes a big difference on this issue. I don't hold that your need to work creates any sort of extra obligation for current employers to hire you. Or, if it does, then employers are at least no MORE obligated to hire you than a fellow worker is to form a bussiness and hire you.

---I'd say that issue has already been decided; the presence of anti-discrimination legislation speaks volumes.---

Since the legislation in many places does not include all sorts of potential groups to begin with, it speaks volumes about how screwed up it is in its conception. The law, according to you, is inconsistent: it does not give equal protection to everyone that might be discriminated against.
Well, the reason for this is that the laws came about as the result of individual interest groups pushing for special powers over employers for their group, and their group only, as opposed to having any sort of consistent moral stance based in general language.

---Obviously not, since when they had the right to do so they abused it egregiously, to the great harm of society.---

What do you mean, precisely, by "harm of society." What harms caused to what people, in what ways? Is the society of yesterday the same as that of today?

Keep in mind, there are plenty of more effective ways to fight certain evils that we would not countenance. Right here on these very boards we have people dead set against the idea of giving up any protection of privacy from the government in exchange for increased security.

---Apos, it can be difficult for the general public to know if a company discriminates and, if so, how to take action.---

I don't disagree with that... but so? That still doesn't make it a legitimate ground for government intervention, because the problem is civil, not governmental. The government can't discriminate in its hiring, private citizens can. When private citizens like you and I care about discrimination, then perhaps we should put more energy into finding out who holds opinions contrary to ours, and cease supporting them/speak out against them. If it's hard, then it's still OUR hard task to take on.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Suppose the worker pool at XYZ, Inc. is 100 people. How do you require that they hire at least one gay person without exercizing a prejudice against at least one straight person? Or vice-versa?
You don't. But you do make sure that there is recourse available to the qualified gay person who gets fired, if being gay is what cost them their job. Just like in the OP.

What's being discussed here is a simple addition to existing legislation that's already proven to be efficacious in preventing discrimination against minorities. If you want to change the way the whole country works, well, good. Isn't that a separate topic, though?

[KellyM]

[b]Libertarian[b], I fear I do not understand your request, and suggest that you have misunderstood what I said.

[kimera]

Originally posted by Mtgman
This does not necessarially follow. It is possible to be a bigot in your personal life and still be professional and use nonprejudiced standards when in the workplace.

If you were lamenting your lack of being treated civily in public then I sympathize, if you were suggesting action be taken to remedy it, then I disagree.

As for the first part, my girlfriend wants to be a lawyer. Unfortunately, she has been told many times that it will be extremely difficult for her to do so, since she will recieve discrimination from judges, other lawyers, clients and juries. She knows that she is limited in her career options just because of the way she naturally is at birth. I have another ts friend who is looking for a job right now and running into the same obsticles.

And as for the second part, i should have clarified. I ment it more, "if I can't even be treated civily while simply walking down the street, I don't expect to be treated civily at my work place."

My girlfriend and I are debating trying out an experiment... her showing up to my work in a dress and make up. We are thinking of trying this before we move back to LA. The only problem is, I don't want it showing up on my record that I have been fired, because I have a good work record before this.

[KellyM]

ava, there are companies that do not discriminate against transsexuals. My current employer has not done anything negative toward me, and when someone tried to out me to management (for whatever reason), the attitude of our chief administrative officer was "Does she do her job well, or not? Then it's of no concern of ours."

Of course, I'm in the computer industry. But there are quite a few practicing transsexual lawyers, too.

[Apos]

Transexuals are yet another good reason why anti-discrimination laws, if done at all, should never have been done piecemeal. Here is a group, not necessarily having anything to do with homosexuality, that wont be protected even if homosexuals get protected, despite the fact that their transexuality rarely has any relevance to their performance.
That's the problem of protecting groups instead of working from principles.

[KellyM]

But, Apos, we can't get people to agree not to discriminate at all. The businessdroids all whine and say that if they can't feel free to discriminate they won't be able to operate at all because they'll be paralyzed by the possibility of someone else second-guessing their business decisions. (Whether or not this is true is a separate issue.)

And, to be honest, being transsexual often does negatively impact your performance and it definitely increases your medical expenses (which are often borne, at least in part, by the company). The reason why employers should, nonetheless, not discriminate against transsexuals (or any of a large number of other such things) is out of recognition that respect for human dignity should outweigh the quest for profit.

[MrVisible]

So, Apos, can you suggest a better way to implement protection from discrimination across the board, without protecting on the basis of individual characteristics such as race or sexual orientation? If so, can you outline a plan to implement that in a reasonable time frame? With limited funds?

If not, then adding to existing anti-discrimination legislation is the more reasonable approach, and the one I'll be devoting my efforts to.

[Apos]

---And, to be honest, being transsexual often does negatively impact your performance and it definitely increases your medical expenses (which are often borne, at least in part, by the company).---

I'm not sure why that would be a different case than any person who had more medical needs than normal.

---The reason why employers should, nonetheless, not discriminate against transsexuals (or any of a large number of other such things) is out of recognition that respect for human dignity should outweigh the quest for profit.---

Dignity is one thing. But it's hardly an argument for "dignity" that employers be forced to pay more for particular employees when cheaper ones are available.

---So, Apos, can you suggest a better way to implement protection from discrimination across the board, without protecting on the basis of individual characteristics such as race or sexual orientation? If so, can you outline a plan to implement that in a reasonable time frame? With limited funds?---

Eh? What limited funds/time are you thinking of? I would suggest exactly what I already said: demand that employers not discriminate on the basis of traits irrelevant to what's they are asking (i.e. can I perform my job?). I don't see how that's any harder than suits based on membership in specific groups: if anything, the principle at stake is clearer

I would also suggest that you be screened by the government to make sure the race, gender, or sexuality of your potential employers didn't unduly influence your choice of job, where you shop, where you live, who you associate with, and most importantly, who you date. I wouldn't want you dating a black woman when there is a perfectly qualified Asian man interested in you.

[KellyM]

So, Apos, you think businesses should be free to discriminate against employees who are able to do the job requested of them but whose medical conditions (while irrelevant to the job) will increase the overall cost of administering the company's defined medical benefits plan?

I trust you are in perfect health and intend to remain that way indefinitely.

[Homebrew]

Here's a Victory (http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=7131&sd=12/05/02) on the job front.

The board of directors of Cracker Barrel restaurants announced Wednesday that it is adding sexual orientation to the list of characteristics covered by the company's nondiscrimination policy. The announcement ends a more-than-decade-long campaign on the part of gay rights advocates who have been pressuring the restaurant chain because of its policy of firing employees who fail to "demonstrate normal heterosexual values."

[snip]

Cracker Barrel drew national attention in 1991 when it instituted a company policy that called for terminating employees "whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values which have been the foundation of families in our society." At least 11 workers were fired as a result. The company's blatant discrimination--which was legal in the states where it occurred and remains legal under federal law--touched off a wave of protests and boycotts at Cracker Barrel restaurants. Cracker Barrel later revoked the policy, which it once described as a "well-intentioned overreaction to the perceived values of our customers," but until now had not expressly protected gay employees from workplace discrimination.
(bolding mine)

Not that I would eat there anyway, but this is good news. I'm sure it's personally good news to a certain closeted Cracker Barrel manager who shall remain nameless.

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by ava
As for the first part, my girlfriend wants to be a lawyer. Unfortunately, she has been told many times that it will be extremely difficult for her to do so, since she will recieve discrimination from judges, other lawyers, clients and juries. She knows that she is limited in her career options just because of the way she naturally is at birth. I have another ts friend who is looking for a job right now and running into the same obsticles.And as soon as this discrimination occurs I think your girlfriend should have legal recourse against everyone but the clients who refuse her services(clients have the priveledge of choosing thier attorney of course). Judges, other lawyers, and juries have a duty to perform their duties fairly, they don't have the freedom to choose to believe someone else's arguement simply because of the sexual preference of the presenter. Clients are responsible to no one but themselves as to how they decide which lawyer to use. Corporations with non-discrimination policies which apply to vendor selection processes(typically large corporations) would be in violation of their own policies for discrimination of this type. The individual who performed the selection could be disciplined within the framework of the company for discriminating against a homosexual.(depending on the policy of course)And as for the second part, i should have clarified. I ment it more, "if I can't even be treated civily while simply walking down the street, I don't expect to be treated civily at my work place."And this is the disagreement. I say you SHOULD expect to be treated fairly in a professional framework, especially in a framework with established policies on discrimination like the legal system. These anti-discrimination policies should apply to homo/hetero discrimination and one should have every expectation to be treated fairly on the job once such laws/policies are in place. ATM these are not universal, but that's what laws like the one in the OP are trying to change right?

Enjoy,
Steven