Tennessee Man fired because he is Gay

There are 20 comments on the Jan 10, 2009, lezgetreal.com story titled Tennessee Man fired because he is Gay. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Wonder why we need the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)?

WSNM television in Nashville, Tennessee is reporting that David Hill, an openly gay man, was fired Tuesday from the former Brentwood Holiday Inn, simply because he was gay.

About his dismissal Hill said this…
They literally said to me because of my orientation and my alternative lifestyle, that I was not a fit for the hotel… The owner said, 'I don't give a damn. They can sue me. I will not have any of the gays in leadership roles in my hotel.' And that's a quote,"

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

reform party

United States

#64 Mar 8, 2009
In TN CITIZENS ARE DENIED ALL HUMAN RIGHTS......

call any quality attorney and he will interpret the law and base it on the united states constitution.

I was told (not gay just gender discrimination) "according to the united states constitution you are not a human being but a property of the state"

"you have no suit and you are wasting my time..."

THAT STATEMENT BY AN ATTORNEY WHOM I WAS WILLING TO PAY....

IS THE SINGLE MOST DEPRESSING STATEMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.......I ALSO FEEL IF EVERYONE IN AMERICA WAS TOLD THAT AT THE SAME TIME......WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT TOO DAMN LONG TO ENJOY FREEDOM AGAIN......

WE MUST EXCERCISE ARTICLE ONE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.....

We can reform, our government....We must FORCE our will on them...

We can do this by peacefuly assembly

reformtn@yahoo.com
AAA

Nashville, TN

#65 Mar 8, 2009
Big deal. Lots of men get fired. Many get fired for the crime of breathing while male.
amazing

Morehead, KY

#66 Mar 10, 2009
Guess I think different but I think people should have the right to choose who works for them .

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#67 Mar 10, 2009
amazing wrote:
Guess I think different but I think people should have the right to choose who works for them .
Then why do we have laws at all that say you can't fire a worker because of their race, color, creed, national origin, gender, disability, etc ???

I'm a DEVOUT PROTESTANT and PROUDLY ANTI-CATHOLIC. Yet I don't have the right to fire, or not hire at all, a person simply because they are Catholic. Is that what you are defending ?

“standing up for America.”

Since: Feb 09

Joelton

#68 Mar 10, 2009
To the owner of the hotel, I have but one thing to say to you " It's about time someone stands up for what they believe in. If you own the business then you should have the right to hire or fire whoever in the heck you want to. It sounds like he needs to take it like a man, oops I forgot he's use to taking it like a little 8!tch!!!

“I am happy”

Since: Jul 08

St. Petersburg, FL

#69 Mar 11, 2009
wdever wrote:
To the owner of the hotel, I have but one thing to say to you " It's about time someone stands up for what they believe in. If you own the business then you should have the right to hire or fire whoever in the heck you want to. It sounds like he needs to take it like a man, oops I forgot he's use to taking it like a little 8!tch!!!
Oh, I see. So, if your entire life depends on the wage you earn from my business and I fire you because you are STRAIGHT. You will toddle off and understand?

You do understand that businesses, in states, that fire someone for being gay also have the same right to fire someone because they are straight? Let's see how the straight people handle it when gay business owners (and there are a lot of them) turn the sword on them?
george burnett

AOL

#72 Mar 12, 2009
Mnmboi wrote:
I say sue the hell out of that owner and shut that hotel down. Maybe then Mr. Hill can use the money and open up his own hotel.
was the problem "being gay" or was it offensive,flaming behavior.homo or hetero,employees are there to work.
Bobo

Spring Hill, TN

#74 Mar 14, 2009
It's not bigotry to keep perverts out of your business. If you don't like the way he does business, then don't patronize the business.
AAA

Nashville, TN

#75 Mar 15, 2009
wishingyouwereme wrote:
I don't see a problem here. At least he knows why he got fired. Some places don't have to tell you why.
Here in Tennessee they don't have to have a reason to refuse to hire you,or fire you. This is what nobody tells all of the people who come here looking for jobs or careers.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#77 Mar 29, 2009
Wow! This is stupid. We need to pass laws that protect these people. I just finished our Youth Legislature at the capital (a fake government if you will where teens rule) and we actually passed a Civil Union bill that would be a step in the right direction for Tennessee. Maybe this is a good sign for our future. No body should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. This is just as bad as discriminating against people of another race. Sure, their may not be as many homosexuals as, say, blacks in the 50s, but that does not mean that they should not be protected. They are people just like everyone else and it is the duty of the government to protect its people. We need to move forward in the world and stop the discrimination in Tennessee.
Chapman Law Student DePo

Orange, CA

#78 Mar 31, 2009
I've been thinking about a HYPOTHETICAL solution to this problem: FIRE THE BREEDERS!

Federal employment discrimination based on "sex" doesn't cover sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Therefore [Federally] a gay man or woman can be fired, not because of their performance, but merely because of their sexual orientation. The federal legislature won't amend the act because they're afraid to lose their constituent base, therefore they vote the proposed amendments down.

One solution is to get your State to adopt its own anti sexual orientation discrimination laws. Many states have written their own statutes to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but a number of more "traditional" states have yet to follow.

For the broader federal lack of protection, this is what I HYPOTHETICALLY PROPOSE.

Now the 14th amendment contains a little provision known as the equal protection clause which says: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Once again, the courts in the state must treat all citizens with equal protection. So why not give them equal treatment? Hold onto to that thought, we'll be bringing it back here in a moment.

A little disclaimer: I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY ILLEGAL ACTION, OR ANY ACTION AT ALL, THIS IS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND ANY BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD CHECK LOCAL & STATE LAWS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.

Now back to my point: The straight majority only lets this sexual-orientation discrimination continue because the harm doesn't affect them. If it was reversed, and straight people were fired for being straight, the discrimination wouldn't stand.

Hypothetically speaking, Gay business owners & straight business owners with an interest in ending sexual orientation discrimination could start firing all straight employees for no other reason than just being straight.

Something a'la: "I found out he was straight and decided to terminate him. I don't want straight employees here. Breeders, as we call them, disgust me."

Bring on the lawsuits. Now here's where it gets fun. The court's going to have to throw out all the claimants suits, because STRAIGHT people are offered NO FEDERAL PROTECTION under Title VII because they are straight.

And because of the equal protection clause (I said we would be coming back here), if the courts held that straight people could not be fired because of their sexual orientation, then they would likely have to extend equal protection under the law to homosexuals as well.

Interesting topic. Welcome responses.
the corrector

Coopersburg, PA

#79 Mar 31, 2009
All gays are mentally ill and there is no hope unless they admit, then they can get the help they need.

“I am happy”

Since: Jul 08

St. Petersburg, FL

#80 Mar 31, 2009
the corrector wrote:
All gays are mentally ill and there is no hope unless they admit, then they can get the help they need.
"Admit" to what. Your sentences are not only incomplete, but so are your thoughts. What precisely are you trying to get at?

Oh yes, you are an ignorant homophobe. Should have figured.....
Vandy Employee

Nashville, TN

#81 Apr 1, 2009
ScottyMatic wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately true.
When I lived in Tennessee in the 90's, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper in support of LGBT rights.
My boss called me into his office and told me that he didn't think our clients would approve of me being openly gay. He threatened to fire me. I told him that if he did, I would go directly to those several hundred clients--who had always been exceptionally appreciative of my work--and let each of them know exactly why he fired me.
I walked out of his office and he never said another word about it.
I think a useful avenue of boycott would be to alert travel agencies and travel websites about the discrimination of Atre' Hotel & Suites, and request that they do not book rooms there.
Good for you man!
The fired individual should seek employment at Vanderbilt University after he is done with all this mess. They have incredible benefits, let alone, SAME SEX PARTNER benefits!

“Married as I can be!”

Since: Jun 07

Las Vegas

#82 Apr 1, 2009
the corrector wrote:
All gays are mentally ill and there is no hope unless they admit, then they can get the help they need.
Please cite for us your medical and/or psychiatric credentials and experience that gives you the authority to make such a ridiculous statement.
Supporter

Nashville, TN

#83 Apr 1, 2009
Chapman Law Student DePo wrote:
I've been thinking about a HYPOTHETICAL solution to this problem: FIRE THE BREEDERS!
Federal employment discrimination based on "sex" doesn't cover sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Therefore [Federally] a gay man or woman can be fired, not because of their performance, but merely because of their sexual orientation. The federal legislature won't amend the act because they're afraid to lose their constituent base, therefore they vote the proposed amendments down.
One solution is to get your State to adopt its own anti sexual orientation discrimination laws. Many states have written their own statutes to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but a number of more "traditional" states have yet to follow.
For the broader federal lack of protection, this is what I HYPOTHETICALLY PROPOSE.
Now the 14th amendment contains a little provision known as the equal protection clause which says: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Once again, the courts in the state must treat all citizens with equal protection. So why not give them equal treatment? Hold onto to that thought, we'll be bringing it back here in a moment.
A little disclaimer: I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY ILLEGAL ACTION, OR ANY ACTION AT ALL, THIS IS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND ANY BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD CHECK LOCAL & STATE LAWS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
Now back to my point: The straight majority only lets this sexual-orientation discrimination continue because the harm doesn't affect them. If it was reversed, and straight people were fired for being straight, the discrimination wouldn't stand.
Hypothetically speaking, Gay business owners & straight business owners with an interest in ending sexual orientation discrimination could start firing all straight employees for no other reason than just being straight.
Something a'la: "I found out he was straight and decided to terminate him. I don't want straight employees here. Breeders, as we call them, disgust me."
Bring on the lawsuits. Now here's where it gets fun. The court's going to have to throw out all the claimants suits, because STRAIGHT people are offered NO FEDERAL PROTECTION under Title VII because they are straight.
And because of the equal protection clause (I said we would be coming back here), if the courts held that straight people could not be fired because of their sexual orientation, then they would likely have to extend equal protection under the law to homosexuals as well.
Interesting topic. Welcome responses.
This would make for an excellent episode of one of those "law shows" -Bring it on in media and real life!
Supporter

Nashville, TN

#84 Apr 1, 2009
george burnett wrote:
<quoted text>was the problem "being gay" or was it offensive,flaming behavior.homo or hetero,employees are there to work.
I'm not sure that you have a valid point, if he had inaapropriate behavior, then why was he in a management position?
george burnett

AOL

#85 Apr 1, 2009
Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that you have a valid point, if he had inaapropriate behavior, then why was he in a management position?
1.you can be hired off the street directly into a management position.2.you can engage in abusive or inappropriate behavior once you are in a management position.do you really think the boss didn't know he was gay when he was hired.i work with several gays at work.they are good employees and cause no problems with the customers or their coworkers.i didn't need to be told:"oh,by the way he/she is gay" when i met them.some things you can just figgure out.

“Knowledge comes-wisdom lingers”

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#86 Apr 1, 2009
I'd rather have a "gay" person wait on me in any instance .. they're more concise, better mannered (usually) and actually care about the quality of their work ...

I think the hotel management made a HUGE mistake .. and they'll end up paying for it .. one way or the other!
James

Orange, CA

#87 Apr 7, 2009
Then you guys will be just as heterosexualphobic as the Rest of the world! Do two wrongs make a right?
Chapman Law Student DePo wrote:
I've been thinking about a HYPOTHETICAL solution to this problem: FIRE THE BREEDERS!
Federal employment discrimination based on "sex" doesn't cover sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Therefore [Federally] a gay man or woman can be fired, not because of their performance, but merely because of their sexual orientation. The federal legislature won't amend the act because they're afraid to lose their constituent base, therefore they vote the proposed amendments down.
One solution is to get your State to adopt its own anti sexual orientation discrimination laws. Many states have written their own statutes to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but a number of more "traditional" states have yet to follow.
For the broader federal lack of protection, this is what I HYPOTHETICALLY PROPOSE.
Now the 14th amendment contains a little provision known as the equal protection clause which says: "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Once again, the courts in the state must treat all citizens with equal protection. So why not give them equal treatment? Hold onto to that thought, we'll be bringing it back here in a moment.
A little disclaimer: I AM NOT PROPOSING ANY ILLEGAL ACTION, OR ANY ACTION AT ALL, THIS IS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND ANY BUSINESS OWNERS SHOULD CHECK LOCAL & STATE LAWS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
Now back to my point: The straight majority only lets this sexual-orientation discrimination continue because the harm doesn't affect them. If it was reversed, and straight people were fired for being straight, the discrimination wouldn't stand.
Hypothetically speaking, Gay business owners & straight business owners with an interest in ending sexual orientation discrimination could start firing all straight employees for no other reason than just being straight.
Something a'la: "I found out he was straight and decided to terminate him. I don't want straight employees here. Breeders, as we call them, disgust me."
Bring on the lawsuits. Now here's where it gets fun. The court's going to have to throw out all the claimants suits, because STRAIGHT people are offered NO FEDERAL PROTECTION under Title VII because they are straight.
And because of the equal protection clause (I said we would be coming back here), if the courts held that straight people could not be fired because of their sexual orientation, then they would likely have to extend equal protection under the law to homosexuals as well.
Interesting topic. Welcome responses.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brentwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
back in black 1 hr Brenda Boner 54
anyone remember kelly j lawson 4 hr looking good 2
how does it feel 6 hr jerry 4
Kelly G 14 hr CHARLIES ANGEL 118
Sit and Stare is the Choice for Those Sitting O... 14 hr Culture Auditor 1
Hottest local news anchor.... (Feb '11) 15 hr wtf1999 2,238
Music Balance Thu gab 1
More from around the web

Brentwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]