Fired for being gay? It's legal in 29 states

There are 8 comments on the News Journal story from Jan 17, 2010, titled Fired for being gay? It's legal in 29 states. In it, News Journal reports that:

After a 15-year fight, gay rights' groups believe 2010 will be the year they persuade Congress to pass a landmark law protecting workers from being fired or denied jobs or promotions because of their sexual orientation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Journal.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#179 Nov 3, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Unions destroyed the steel industry, the textile industry, the shoe industry and others in this country. They brought GM & Chrysler to bankruptcy. They have just about every state and many major cities deep in the red with unfunded liabilities. Oh yeah, unions are wonderful.
I repeat, "self-policing". If necessary, the unions should be deciding who is qualified for which pay grades. Someone has to make those choices. Simply promoting those who've been in the longest is not cutting it. Someone is going to be bitter. The question is whether or not you can trust anyone in this world or when it all comes down, do we all just look out for our own selfish ambitions.

You can't trust management to make those decisions. They've proven time and again that they consider workers disposable.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#180 Nov 3, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree.
None of those are listed in that section of the Constitution.
"AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
<quoted text>wrong. In 29 States being gay is cause for termination. It can and DOES happen
<quoted text>DADT was never a fair policy. I reeks of the days when light skinned people passed, and still faced tremendous consequences if their secret was discovered. As for quotas, IMO they should even exist. You're their for the job. If you can do it and do it best you should be the one to have the job. Nothing else should be a factor
<quoted text>Agreed
<quoted text>That's just nuts
<quoted text>Any worker harassing any other worker should be canned. That has nothing to do with any DADTDP policy.
The 14th Amendment was directly linked to the freeing of slaves. Religion and gender simply are included because other parts of the Constitution address religion and gender so really it's about all those states who stubbornly expect things in explicit writing before they'll cooperate.

What you're doing is hypocritical. If you need things to be in explicit writing before you cooperate, then don't expect to be entitled to things that aren't explicitly written! It really is that simple.

You know,the "Equal Rights Amendment" doesn't really exist. It never was voted for by a supermajority and was never ratified by enough of the states. Since then some states have rescinded their support for it. Without "woman's rights" it's kind of hard to demand gay rights or minority rights or any other self-proclaimed minority faction's rights.

What you have is "Equal protection under the law" and that means that you've got to have a law about the employment status of gays to begin with. That's how it is!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#181 Nov 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The 14th Amendment was directly linked to the freeing of slaves. Religion and gender simply are included because other parts of the Constitution address religion and gender so really it's about all those states who stubbornly expect things in explicit writing before they'll cooperate.
What you're doing is hypocritical. If you need things to be in explicit writing before you cooperate, then don't expect to be entitled to things that aren't explicitly written! It really is that simple.
You know,the "Equal Rights Amendment" doesn't really exist. It never was voted for by a supermajority and was never ratified by enough of the states. Since then some states have rescinded their support for it. Without "woman's rights" it's kind of hard to demand gay rights or minority rights or any other self-proclaimed minority faction's rights.
What you have is "Equal protection under the law" and that means that you've got to have a law about the employment status of gays to begin with. That's how it is!
What a load of B.S.

What part of "ALL PERSONS", and "ARE CITIZENS" is too hard for you to comprehend?

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

"ALL PERSONS" born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, "ARE CITIZENS" of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of "CITIZENS" of the United States; nor shall any state deprive "ANY PERSON" of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to "ANY PERSON" within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#182 Nov 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really true. Employers can fire a person for things like appearance. Heck! The military seems to find it intolerable to sport a tattoo nowadays.
The Equal Protection clause of the Constitution is pretty specific to race, religion and to some degree, gender. This all comes down to nattering over aesthetics. Being gay alone usually isn't enough to get a person fired, but if it linked to a disruption in the workplace, then it is usually considered fair game.
All in all, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is a fair policy but nowadays just about everyone is looking to play "victim" and have the law protect them when they engage in political activity in the workplace. Quotas are not acceptable, but if they are considered, it should only be based on unavoidable genetic factors. Even religion is a choice so if you must have your faith, DON'T ASK AND DON'T TELL.
Outside the workplace, there should be no problems. If I want to engage in ANY kind of political speech on Facebook, I should not be subject to judgement in the workplace....but that is all out of control and is not even slowing down. Employers feel that employees owe them fealty 24/7 and that has got to stop.
It's time to Unionize and it's time for the Unions to police their own. Personally, if I ran a Union and I saw gays trying to push the Union into protecting their "rights" I'd have to ask how their sexual preferences have any impact on the work environment. If their preferences are somehow IN the work environment, they're OUT of line. If a fellow Union worker harasses a gay because they found out on Facebook or something like that, I'd be inclined to punish the harassing worker. "Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't just apply to employers.
When people were fired or refused service because they are gay it wasn't usually due to any politics from the gay person. A few straights have been perceived to be gay.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#183 Nov 4, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of B.S.
What part of "ALL PERSONS", and "ARE CITIZENS" is too hard for you to comprehend?
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
"ALL PERSONS" born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, "ARE CITIZENS" of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of "CITIZENS" of the United States; nor shall any state deprive "ANY PERSON" of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to "ANY PERSON" within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So...

What are employers? Hmmm?
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#184 Nov 4, 2013
equalityboy81 wrote:
<quoted text>
When people were fired or refused service because they are gay it wasn't usually due to any politics from the gay person. A few straights have been perceived to be gay.
You're preaching to the choir more than you'll ever know!

Not that I admire the culture implied there. It's just that I'm very anti-alphadog in most ways. I think it's a bit of Native American in the blood, but it just plain pisses me off to have someone try to give me orders, especially as if they think I'm acknowledging their authority and wouldn't dream of asking questions.

It's not the same as being passive-aggressive in the workplace though. You're there to do a job and that doesn't mean allowing a goon to crack a whip over you OR to hold up progress every time you want to negotiate for something new. It can be done. People are just too lazy, too vain and too intent on instant gratification.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#185 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
So...
What are employers? Hmmm?
It's illegal to refuse to hire someone because of their race, religion or national origin. It's also illegal to fire someone because of their race, religion or ethnicity or physical handicap.

frivolous lawsuits? too expensive and litigious for businesses?

Yet businesses who play by the rules are doing quite well.

There is no reason to believe that adding sexual orientation or gender identity would be anymore disruptive to business than when religion, race or physical handicap were first protected.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#186 Nov 6, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>It's illegal to refuse to hire someone because of their race, religion or national origin. It's also illegal to fire someone because of their race, religion or ethnicity or physical handicap.
frivolous lawsuits? too expensive and litigious for businesses?
Yet businesses who play by the rules are doing quite well.
There is no reason to believe that adding sexual orientation or gender identity would be anymore disruptive to business than when religion, race or physical handicap were first protected.
You've got to be kidding. Do you think the military hires the disabled? Do you think The Catholic Church hires Jews or Muslims to preach? Do you think Hooters would hire a dumpy looking lady to work in their restaurants? There's millions of exceptions to the chaos of hiring practices. There always will be.

If you push too hard, eventually the public will come down on you so hard you won't have time to think. Best leave the law to those who know what is manageable, not to obsessive/compulsives who really aren't liked by anyone but malcontents who want to break things.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Fallout over religious objections law spurs loc... 5 min TerryE 1
News Michelle Duggar Warns Arkansas Community That T... (Aug '14) 28 min TerryE 16
meet here gays.(. jeddah) (Feb '10) 1 hr Sam jeddah 13,586
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 1 hr lides 441
where guys and gays hangout in jeddah (Sep '10) 1 hr Sam jeddah 1,674
lookin for top jeddah (Jul '10) 1 hr Sam jeddah 1,803
Visiting jeddah on Saturday, need massage 2 hr filjeddah 5
More from around the web