http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/congress.gay.rights.ap/index.html

Quote :

"House passes ban on job bias against gays WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Wednesday approved the first federal ban on job discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came despite protests from some gay rights supporters that the bill does not protect transgender workers. That term covers transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance does not match their gender at birth. The measure would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. It would exempt churches and the military. After the 235-184 vote, supporters are expecting a tough fight in the narrowly divided Senate, where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy plans to introduce a similar version. A veto from President Bush is expected if the proposal does pass the Senate. The White House has cited constitutional concerns and said the proposal could trample religious rights."

From the report I've heard, the main beef the opposition has with it is that it would force religious groups to hire homosexuals. Apparently they didn't get the memo, though. Religious groups are exempt from the this law.

11/8/2007 1:38:53 PM

I would have thought that would be included under the anti-discrimination act that they passed in 1968. On second thought I don't ever recall seeing anything about homosexuals on the sign in the breakroom.

Conversely, does this mean that straight guys can finally bartend at gay bars?

11/8/2007 1:41:44 PM

This just seems more nanny state politics to me.

Look in business you want the best person for the job.

If someone sucks at thier job and you need to fire them, ok. However, with shit like this they can simply say they were fired for being gay, black, tall, fat, etc.. Its all BS. If you did actually fire someone that was great at thier job bc of those, then you wont be in business very long.

11/8/2007 1:43:17 PM

who the fuck says "your gayness prevents you from being hired here"


it would probably be more like "Your skills aren't what we're looking for."

11/8/2007 1:47:53 PM

^^^lol is being gay a BFOQ at a gay bar?

11/8/2007 1:49:06 PM

I would assume so. It's really the only example that I can think of where being straight would hurt you.

Ooooh! Except for hair salon.

11/8/2007 1:52:39 PM

^ or having a show on A&E or Bravo

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 1:58:35 PM

Just another assault on Americans' freedom of association.

If you own the property, personally or as a business, you have the right to associate, or not associate, with anyone you please for whatever reason you like. Whether your reasons are arbitrary, stupid, or immoral should be of no concern to the state. Unfortunately, this right isn't recognized.

Just because I sell things on my land does not remove my right to say 'go away' to anyone on my property, including current or potential employees (of course, assuming there is no prior contract with them stating otherwise).

I think this is less of a 'nanny state' issue than one of the morality police.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 2:07 PM. Reason : a]

11/8/2007 2:06:46 PM

So you'd be against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, too?

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 2:09:38 PM

Yes. In America, no man should be forced by the state to allow another private citizen on his property. This is a very basic freedom that is hard not to recognize.

And this right is well-recognized for private individuals now, but when you run a business on that property, your rights evaporate.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 2:17 PM. Reason : a]

11/8/2007 2:15:03 PM

It's the duty of the state to protect all of its citizens, that includes protecting minorities from racist and overly-religious assholes.

11/8/2007 2:16:57 PM

It is the state's duty to make sure that racists and overly religious assholes, and everyone else, do not violate that minority's rights - whether in personal safety or any other right.

But that minority has no right to demand entrance onto another private citizen's property.

The assholes are not violating a minority's rights by saying, "You can't come in here."

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : a]

11/8/2007 2:19:14 PM

So you're basically arguing that we allow segregation to come back fully fledged?


Wow.

11/8/2007 2:22:35 PM

SkankinMonky, are you seriously suggesting that the act of 1964 is the only thing keeping you from throwing black people out of your business? Are you seriously that racist?

11/8/2007 2:27:08 PM

Ideally americans will eventually reach a point of social progress where we won't need laws like this, but I don't expect that these will ever be taken off of the books.

11/8/2007 2:34:26 PM

^^ I never mentioned that act. I was talking about this comment:

Quote :

" But that minority has no right to demand entrance onto another private citizen's property. The assholes are not violating a minority's rights by saying, "You can't come in here." "

Which leads directly to segregation.

11/8/2007 2:36:14 PM

^ only among individuals that value segregation would the right to be segregated result in segregation.

As such, for you to state that granting you the right to segregate yourself will result in segregation, you are pronouncing your own preference for segregation.

11/8/2007 2:42:18 PM

Indeed, I can't stand being around the darkies personally so I need the government to make me be around them.


It has nothing to do with the history of our country at all.

11/8/2007 2:44:43 PM

Quote :

"If someone sucks at thier job and you need to fire them, ok. However, with shit like this they can simply say they were fired for being gay, black, tall, fat, etc.. Its all BS. If you did actually fire someone that was great at thier job bc of those, then you wont be in business very long."

First of all, the gay/black employee would actually have to prove they were discriminated against in court.

Firing someone because because they're gay when they're great at their job would be dumb, but what if they're just good? As in good as the average straight employee.

What about promotions? Someone could pass over a great black employee for a good white employee because he "fits in" better with their corporate culture.

11/8/2007 2:49:14 PM

^BS, you dont have to PROVE anything to allege or sue.

11/8/2007 2:58:43 PM

^but you do to win

I'm a little surprised. I was expecting people to find some silly difference between this act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I certainly wasn't expecting anyone to dismiss both entirely.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 3:17:21 PM

Not to settle.

Anyone see the news special on this wheelchair guy that goes around sueing businesses for not being handicap accessible? He and his lawyer have made millions and even sued places where he hasnt been.

11/8/2007 3:22:10 PM

Sure, people exploit the system. What's new?

It's a side effect of protecting peoples' rights.

11/8/2007 3:43:04 PM

This new law, just like all the previous acts, including the 1991 disabilities act, 1964 civil rights act, etc, do nothing more than drive up unemployment and drive down the wages of those it supposedly protects. They grant these special individuals special standing to sue in court, which makes them all walking time-bombs where the only way to avoid getting hit by them is to not hire them in the first place with the phrase "Your skills aren't what we're looking for" when the truth is "You frighten us because you might sue us later."

I don't know the statistics on the civil rights acts, but the 1991 disabilities act landed 1/3rd of such Americans unemployable. I suspect this new law will do about the same good. But hey, all that matters is that congress had good intentions in its heart when it ruined the lives of millions of people.

11/8/2007 3:54:21 PM

^Good thing a lot of gay people are mostly indistinguishable from straights in a job interview

11/8/2007 3:58:06 PM

I am not in favor of segregation, quite obviously, as much of that issue involved public property like schools. No question, such discrimination on public property is not acceptable.

Many of you guys act surprised that someone believes that property owners have the right to allow/refuse entry to their property based on whatever criteria they want.

I am not advocating anything all that radical...only that business property owners be seen with the same rights as private homeowners currently enjoy. I see no principled reason why buying/selling on your property means you have less rights.

Even today, if a racist white homeowner has a black man knock on his door to sell something, and racist guy says "Go away, I hate black people." And the black salesman doesn't leave - the homeowner has a valid, legal right to get the police to remove the black guy from his property, because he is trespassing.

Again, if the homeowner was operating a business, why does he suddenly have less rights over his property and free association?

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM. Reason : h]

11/8/2007 4:10:06 PM

So you're saying that businesses should be able to pour as much pollutants into the environment that they want?

It's stupid and naive to even say that private businesses should enjoy the same freedoms as citizens.

11/8/2007 4:17:46 PM

IIRC, the bill does stipulate that businesses that have 15 employees or less can still discriminate.

11/8/2007 4:19:09 PM

^^ Are you saying private homeowners "should be able to pour as much pollutants into the environment [as] they want?"

11/8/2007 4:22:41 PM

^^^Ummm, no, and private citizens cannot do that.

Nobody has the right to damage someone else's property, without their permission or mutually agreed upon compensation.

How would you get that out of what I said?

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM. Reason : carrots]

11/8/2007 4:23:18 PM

Quote :

"This new law, just like all the previous acts, including the 1991 disabilities act, 1964 civil rights act, etc, do nothing more than drive up unemployment and drive down the wages of those it supposedly protects. They grant these special individuals special standing to sue in court, which makes them all walking time-bombs where the only way to avoid getting hit by them is to not hire them in the first place with the phrase "Your skills aren't what we're looking for" when the truth is "You frighten us because you might sue us later." I don't know the statistics on the civil rights acts, but the 1991 disabilities act landed 1/3rd of such Americans unemployable. I suspect this new law will do about the same good. But hey, all that matters is that congress had good intentions in its heart when it ruined the lives of millions of people. "

Easily the best post so far. The sad thing is, it will be ignored or dismissed.

Something that I have always wondered about. Say you live in utah. And you have a business with 15 white guys and girls working, now you need to hire number 16, but cant find a minority.. you get fined for that? I would think not, but common sense seems dead these days.

11/8/2007 4:31:36 PM

good job on making up an irrelevant hypothetical then using it to discredit an unrelated law....

11/8/2007 4:32:55 PM

Toeing that crazy libertarian line, I would say that each person has the right to life and property --rightfully gained.

You have the right to use or dispose of your property in any way you want as long as it doen't infringe on another's right. You cannot commit force or fraud on another. Your business is your property, you choose who will work for you...not a politician.

So you can associate with whomever you want or not. You are a free person, one which the state cannot force you into contract with another...for whatever good intention.

You have the right as a human being to love or hate those of your choice. No one has the right to be free from the displeasure or discrimmination of another.

State-coerced association takes away your free will. You cannot legislate harmony between people for it creates those with special privilages which others cannot claim.

By not hiring a minority, you are not committing aggression, you are simply using your right to not associate with another.

It's a simple question of freedom.

11/8/2007 8:12:34 PM

bosses should also be able to discriminate against secretaries who don't want to have sex with them

11/8/2007 8:32:08 PM

can bosses fire females that show cleavage at work?

shit lowers productivity of male workers...

11/8/2007 8:33:21 PM

they can fire them for not adhering to a dress code i'm sure

11/8/2007 8:52:36 PM

As long as the employer was up-front with the dress code then anything should go, even if the dress code is "naked".

11/8/2007 10:19:20 PM

This thread's landed in the Capital L Libertarian nut house

This Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are firmly supported by the 14th Amendment.

And to think that we'd be better off in terms of liberty without them is ridiculous.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 10:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 10:39:25 PM

I don't know who suggested we would be better off in terms of liberty. My assertion is that by granting gays special standing to sue in court you are providing a dis-incentive for others to associate with them, such as by employing them.

This will, as it always has, produce unintended consequences, such as higher unemployment and lower wages. This is because employing such an individual is a lawsuit risk which a business will expect compensation for in order to assume such risk. As such, a lifestyle blind employer will always choose to hire a straight applicant unless the gay applicant is either a higher quality candidate or willing to accept a lower salary.

If you are really perverse and included wording in the act which makes offering gay individuals lower wages grounds for a lawsuit, then you will have rendered them unemployable.

The only way to avoid unintended consequences is to place the responsibility of choosing job applicants in the hands of government regulators. This would be a better solution than this racist act designed to turn gays into a permanent underclass, either unemployable or only employable at low wages.

11/8/2007 11:10:57 PM

i don't think sexuality of employees is as immediately evident as race or gender, so i'm not so sure that the same logic can be applied (if that logic is even valid)

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM. Reason : nk]

11/8/2007 11:17:19 PM

My point is that by passing such laws you would make it immediately evident, both in wages and employment. If there is currently no wage gap between gays and straights that is possibly a function of such laws not already being on the books.

11/8/2007 11:22:38 PM

how would passing a law make it obvious that someone is gay?

11/8/2007 11:25:52 PM

The acts also cover the hiring process, so I'm not sure how you claim they create an incentive not to hire minorities/handicapped/homosexuals

11/8/2007 11:39:17 PM

^bc if you need to fire them for a legitimate reason, they can always claim they were discriminated against and sue or give your business bad pub.

Its a very valid and factual concern.

11/8/2007 11:49:05 PM

Quote :

"This is because employing such an individual is a lawsuit risk which a business will expect compensation for in order to assume such risk. As such, a lifestyle blind employer will always choose to hire a straight applicant unless the gay applicant is either a higher quality candidate or willing to accept a lower salary."

Or they are clueless to the actual sexuality of the gay employee.

Quote :

"If there is currently no wage gap between gays and straights that is possibly a function of such laws not already being on the books."

Or that many gay employees in the workplace only come out (if at all) once they're certain it will create no ill effects for their career.

Quote :

"his would be a better solution than this racist act designed to turn gays into a permanent underclass, either unemployable or only employable at low wages."

ummm what?

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 12:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 11:59:53 PM

Quote :

"Good thing a lot of gay people are mostly indistinguishable from straights in a job interview"

This is a very good point and I recognize why this fact *should* help minimize the negative effects of such a law.

Quote :

"The acts also cover the hiring process, so I'm not sure how you claim they create an incentive not to hire minorities/handicapped/homosexuals"

As history demonstrates with other minorities that have been turned into walking lawsuits, it is not the lawsuits themselves that cause the harm because actual lawsuits are rare, but how it makes potential employers act. This is because hiring and firing without cause are still accepted claims. But potential employers, like most individuals, over compensate for low-probability events. Although such lawsuits almost never happen, employers still act as if hiring such a minority will walk them through a minefield whenever the employee does not get promoted, does not get a raise, or must be fired for any reason.

11/9/2007 9:14:54 AM