That story is emblematic of my point. He’s a teacher at a Catholic school. My guess is that everyone in that school knew (and likely didnt care) he was gay, but he went the extra step and thought it’d be a good idea to “flaunt” sexual orientation with the news announcement.
The Catholic church is adamant on its condemnation of same-sex marriage, as are the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Mormons, and most sects of Protestants as well.
Why is this guy butt-hurt (no pun intended) because he got canned (no pun intended) from an employer who’s obviously opposed to the action he took?
If I worked at a mosque, how long do you think I’d last on the payroll if I brought BLTs and pork chops with me for lunch?
Your example doesn’t hold weight. When one hires into a company, one is expected to toe the line in terms of the corporate credo. You may interview in a Brooks Brothers suit and then show up on your first day in full drag, but if you do, don’t cry about getting the heave-ho because of your “sexual identity”. You misrepresented yourself and you expect everyone to acquiesce because it’s the trendy-buzz thing to do.
But he didn’t get married at work. He didn’t mention his workplace in the media coverage. Having one’s wedding mentioned in the newspaper is hardly “flaunting,” any more than being married is “flaunting”. (After all, marriage records are public documents.)
A good exercise is to imagine the same situation with non-minorities. Can you imagine a straight man or woman getting fired for having their wedding announced in the newspaper?
Although that’s true, the poster who tried a gotcha is one that seems to have an issue with gays and lesbians, but can’t quite ever bring himself to say so directly. So it was nice to see that line of “reasoning” shut down immediately.
“While we wait for the U.S. Census to tell us about gay families, the National Center for Marriage & Family Research’s new analysis says there are about 580,000 same-sex homes in America — with 86,000 legally married lesbians couples and 66,000 gay men having tied the knot in the five states (and one federal district) where it’s legal. (Though I’m not sure the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon, where marriage is also legal, was counted.) Sticking to stereotypes, gays have some of the highest household incomes and education levels (with straight heteros bottoming the list). Yay, DINKS!
The study, based on data from the 2009 American Community Survey, also finds 17 percent of gay homes have kids (compared to 40% for straights), with lesbians twice as likely to be raising children than gay men with a 22-11 percent split. Thank goodness they’re not all molest-y, right?
It means there must not be tons of queers raising children in Washington D.C., since that’s where the highest concentration of gay male households in the whole country live. Some 26 percent of all unmarried couples in the nation’s capital are gay. Massachusetts ranks highest among lesbian homes, but to be fair: North Hampton.”
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/gay-americans-are-wealthier-better-educated-than-straights-who-wouldnt-want-to-be-a-homosexual-20101111/#ixzz2aweExVnf
Now, it being an openly Gay website, you can take the “findings” with a grain of salt. There might be an agenda, ya think?
Same-sex households could include heterosexual family members and same-sex roommates / housemates, and exclude single gay men and lesbians. Does the data include sexual orientation or is it making assumptions?
Not so much the Reform Jews (which is most of the American Jewish population); the largest organization of Reform rabbis endorsed civil marriage equality back in the '90s.
I don’t see that anyone has claimed that LGBT folks should have a higher than average wage. Could you please quote the specific post or posts that you’re talking about?
And what about teens who get thrown out of the house when they come out to their parents? They’re not begging on the street? (Or worse, being sexually exploited in return for shelter?)
But I think the major question is, again, “How do you know?”
The OP asked the question. Nobody stated they make more, but plenty of responders seem to be making the case that they’re not paid enough, simply because they’re gay.
If I run into a panhandler on the street, am I supposed to assume his/her sexual orientation put them there? Should I even have to consider it as a factor in my decision to toss them a buck?
I’m afraid you have a problem parsing arguments. Do you think African-Americans are paid less on average than Whites? If you accept that statistic, and can imagine reasons why it would be true, why would you question the same statistic for Gays?
So it seems like a perfectly logical question would be “How do you KNOW you don’t see any gay folks on the street begging for change?”. Are you expecting them to be painted fuchsia? Maybe busking by singing showtunes? Impeccably dressed in the latest fashions?
Almost 1 in 5 were refused to be rented to based on their gender identity.
More than 1 in 10 were evicted based on gender identity.
Nearly 1 in 5 have been homeless, and more than half of those who were homeless were harassed by shelter employees due to their gender identity. Nearly 30% were refused accommodation at a homeless shelter due to their gender identity.
I have a problem with making (or mandating) a distinction between people based on their sexuality and an even bigger problem when someone claims that said choice of sexuality is a detriment to upward mobility.