Should protections for federal employees extend to LGBT workers?

[belverron]

"The head of the U.S. Office of the Special Counsel has come under fire again from lawmakers and gay groups for his refusal to enforce a policy that protects federal workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Testifying before a Senate panel on Tuesday, Scott J. Bloch said there is nothing in federal law that requires him to safeguard a federal employee who is fired or somehow penalized for being gay or lesbian, the Washington Post reported.

'We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them," he told the senators. "The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a class protection.'"

Full article here.

The gist of the situation is that sexual orientation has been considered a protected class for federal employees since an executive order by Clinton. Not only that, but Bush has said that he intends to honor that order.

One month after the Office of the Special Counsel replaced the list of protected classes with "any class protected by law," Bloch stopped acknowledging LGBT workers ("We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them. The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a class protection.").

Another article from 365gay.com.

[asterix404]

GLBT people are different from other people and thus are going to be descrimated against... give em equal protection no matter the cost no matter the hardships...

[moustache]

I thought gays were all about wanting to be no different from heterosexuals...(rights wise)

[belverron]

Quote by: moustache I thought Gays were all about wanting to be no different from heterosexuals...(rights wise)

Yes, and not being fired for being straight is something that heterosexuals expect. Whether we have to legislate for these rights or not is immaterial. I'm not saying there should be a quota and I'm not saying gay people couldn't be fired. Only that they couldn't be fired just for being gay.

[belverron]

And "gay" does not get a capital G.

[The Analog Kid]

No employer should know what an employee's sexual habits are.

Isn't sex and sex behaivior a private matter?
Isn't that what the Clinton defenders told us when we learned about Clintons extra-curricular activities, including a rape allegation?

Now all of a sudden they believe that gay people should be some kind of protected class. LOL. As soon as hetero's, poligamists, S&M enthusiasts, and every other category all become a protected class, I'll support homos being protected.
After all, I am for equal protection under the law. Protecting one group of people for their behaivior and not others certainly does not fall under that category.

Its amazing. All across this internet I see the same thing. We're in a war with a dangerous radical sect of Islam and all liberals can think about besides their raging hatred for George Bush are Gays, Gays, Gays, or so it would seem.

How long before the term "homophobe" is thown out? LOL.

[moustache]

I think I agree with you if I correctly understand what your saying. I think gays should be treated no differently in the workplace... they should not have special rights. But they also should not be fired just for being gay.

[The Analog Kid]

Precisely. That is the core of my argument.
Good work for being so observant. :)

[moustache]

well, I like all the other stuff you said too... ...

especially the part about throwing out the word homophobe, sheesh, as soon as you tell somebody your conservative they label you as scared of gays.

gays hould be treated equally, not specially in the workplace, o no now im scared of gays. :rolleyes:

[The Analog Kid]

especially the part about throwing out the word homophobe, sheesh, as soon as you tell somebody your conservative they label you as scared of gays.

Thats just what they do. The reasons are obvious.

[belverron]

Quote by: The Analog Kid No employer should know what an employee's sexual habits are.

That's not the issue. Answer a simple question. Do you think that employers have the right to fire an employee only because of his or her sexual orientation? Because right now, many can. And it's not about sexual habits. Only the gender the person in question is attracted to. Maybe in an ideal world that employer would never know, but how can anyone guarantee that?

Quote by: The Analog Kid As soon as hetero's, poligamists, S&M enthusiasts, and every other category all become a protected class, I'll support homos being protected. After all, I am for equal protection under the law. Protecting one group of people for their behaivior and not others certainly does not fall under that category.

Who's talking about behavior? This would have nothing to do with any behavior occuring in the workplace, which is the only kind that should matter to an employer. If someone is doing something inappropriate in the workplace they deserve to be fired. What if, for example, a lesbian's co-worker made some remark, in passing, to her boss which revealed her sexual orientation? Should he be able to fire her? It's not a far-fetched scenario, and it's not inappropriate for her co-worker to have that knowledge. That, and that alone, is the issue at hand.

Many of your examples don't really make sense. Obviously heterosexuals need no protection, but any measure which protects homosexuals from discrimination by its nature protects heterosexuals (heterosexual falls under sexual orientation, obviously). If S&M enthusiasts are sharing those kind of details in the workplace they probably should be canned. Polygamists are about as close as you've come to a true analogue, but still, that's a separate issue.

Quote by: The Analog Kid No employer should know what an employee's sexual habits are.

Another note for this quote. Gay people are cursed with this advantage over racial minorities and women, and it's the reason this issue wasn't resolved so many decades ago like theirs were. We can hide, and we can do what we think is best for our careers. Blacks and women fought for themselves because they did not have the alternative of disguising themselves as something they are not. Coming up with a better reason than necessity has caused gays to lag behind.

[The Analog Kid]

That's not the issue.

Sure it is. How is an employer going to know any such thing unless persons are making their sexual lifestyles public information?

Answer a simple question. Do you think that employers have the right to fire an employee only because of his or her sexual orientation? Because right now, many can. And it's not about sexual habits. Only the gender the person in question is attracted to. Maybe in an ideal world that employer would never know, but how can anyone guarantee that?

Yes. Actually, Yes I do. Just like I believe an employer should have the right to hire or fire anyone he chooses for any reason. Sounds awful right? Before you make that determination please read on.
The marketplace and workforce will then respond accordingly. Nobody will want to work for that employer and nobody will want to deal with him.

Now, ask me the question if I think it is stupid to fire someone only because of their sexual orientation.
My answer would be if it was not an issue, was not creating workplace strife and division, was not driving away business, and the employee kept his/her behaivior outside the workplace and to themselves the answer is yes, it's completly stupid.

Who's talking about behavior? This would have nothing to do with any behavior occuring in the workplace, which is the only kind that should matter to an employer.

Two things.
1) You've misinterpreted my use of the word behaivior. I meant it as in habits, not in their behavior on the job.

2) As I've shown above, I agree with your statement as long as one kept their private matters private.

If someone is doing something inappropriate in the workplace they deserve to be fired.

Agreed.

What if, for example, a lesbian's co-worker made some remark, in passing, to her boss which revealed her sexual orientation? Should he be able to fire her?

I believe it is the employers right to do so. I do not believe it would be a smart thing or the right thing to do though.

It's not a far-fetched scenario,

Maybe not.

and it's not inappropriate for her co-worker to have that knowledge.

Then her co-worker would be the person responsible for getting that person fired for opening up his or her big mouth on the job.

That, and that alone, is the issue at hand.

Well, if you say so. Either way, I've answered you.

Many of your examples don't really make sense. Obviously heterosexuals need no protection,

Why? What if the roles were reversed and the employer was gay and the employee was straight?

but any measure which protects homosexuals from discrimination by its nature protects heterosexuals (heterosexual falls under sexual orientation, obviously).

As I've stated, as long as these measures protect all groups and all classes, I'll support it. Otherwise, it's preferential treatment under the law, just like "hate crimes".

If S&M enthusiasts are sharing those kind of details in the workplace they probably should be canned.

Why is that?
What if, using your previous example, the comment was made in passing?

Polygamists are about as close as you've come to a true analogue, but still, that's a separate issue.

What makes it a separate issue?

Another note for this quote. Gay people are cursed with this advantage over racial minorities and women, and it's the reason this issue wasn't resolved so many decades ago like theirs were. We can hide, and we can do what we think is best for our careers. Blacks and women fought for themselves because they did not have the alternative of disguising themselves as something they are not. Coming up with a better reason than necessity has caused gays to lag behind.

Well, that and homosexuality was not embraced in the manner that it is until very recently.

I want to make it clear that I am pretty constructionist and libertarian (classical) when it comes to reading our founding documents. Any issues not stated within should be dealt with though the voting/legislative or amendment process. I have a big problem with judicial activism which is rampant these days.

Anyhoo, I congratulate you on a good post. I was expecting flames and the typical garbage.

[italiangm]

Quote by: The Analog Kid Sure it is. How is an employer going to know any such thing unless persons are making their sexual lifestyles public information?

Keeping pictures of a partner in the office. Requesting family leave to take care of a partner after surgery. Bringing a partner to the xmas party. Asking if a partner can be covered under a health plan.

Quote by: The Analog Kid Just like I believe an employer should have the right to hire or fire anyone he chooses for any reason. Sounds awful right? Before you make that determination please read on. The marketplace and workforce will then respond accordingly. Nobody will want to work for that employer and nobody will want to deal with him.

I live in the South. There are people here who would be thrilled not having to work with those pesky niggers, jews, fags, ragheads, spics, crips, sluts, etc.

Quote by: The Analog Kid Now, ask me the question if I think it is stupid to fire someone only because of their sexual orientation. My answer would be if it was not an issue, was not creating workplace strife and division, was not driving away business, and the employee kept his/her behaivior outside the workplace and to themselves the answer is yes, it's completly stupid.

What would make it an issue? A picture? A rainbow flag decal? Presumptive gossip? Fundamentalist employees or customers who believe homosexuality is wrong? Where do you draw the line?

Quote by: The Analog Kid 1) You've misinterpreted my use of the word behaivior. I meant it as in habits, not in their behavior on the job.

How about a couple examples of what you mean by 'habits"?
.

[belverron]

Your way works perfectly in an ideal world, Analog boy.

[ericsp23]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment. I say that because, in general I am all for gay rights in the workplace.
I think the issue brought up in this thread is a little more complicated than whether or not gays should be fired for being open about their sexual orientation. The question was, should FEDERAL employees who happen to be gay be protected from being fired. Or more on target, should taxpayers who may think that homosexuality is a perversion be forced to contribute to the salaries of gays and lesbians?

[belverron]

That's as foolish as asking whether I should have to pay an evangelist's wages.

[ericsp23]

So are you saying that those who think homosexuality is wrong should not have to contribute the the salaries of homosexuals? If so, you will either have to agree that it is okay for gays and lesbians to be fired for their sexual orientation, or that people have a right to withold taxes from the federal government because they do not agree with the way it is being spent.

[italiangm]

Quote by: ericsp23 Or more on target, should taxpayers who may think that homosexuality is a perversion be forced to contribute to the salaries of gays and lesbians?

Should gays and lesbian taxpayers be forced to contribute to the salaries of any agency that discriminates against them?

Let's see. That would include the entire DoD, and agencies that enforce the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (IRS, SSA, etc). That oughta take a huge bite out of my 1040 bill come April 15th.

[tman_ndsu08]

An employer should be able to fire without a reason!

The problem with firing for no reason is that your competitors will pick up your ex employee (and often for a cheaper price initially) and then put you out of business.


So it's very clear that being an employer is a self regulating position. No need to to have any laws about hiring.

[mr.perfecto]

I voted no because anyone who is "fired for being LGBT" is obviously a mediocre (at best) employee.