The Senate is considering passing an anti-discrimination law for gays in the workplace. The law proposes that it would be illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and transgender issues. Althoug it seems a fair idea, what's in question is the true need for a new anti-discrimination law. Is this issue really so out of control that our Congress needs to invest this much time and energy? If this is the case, why not revamp the entirety of all anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and make sure all social issues are covered so our Congress can get back to issues that are really important.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_go_co/congress_gay_rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
To be honest, if an employer wants to fire an employee, they will find a reason. Even if the underlying reason is because they are gay, transgender, black, white, Christian, atheist etc. Most employers are smart enough to come up with some other reason for termination. The next thing you know, they are both in court. If I owned a business why couldn't I hire and fire whoever I wanted, for whatever reason? After all, it is MY business.
I think the issue has several sides. The first side which was the main reason for Colorado's Amendment 2 back in 1992, was people didn't want another group given special rights, especially since being Gay should be a private matter and not open to the general public, just like any sexuality issue, keep it behind closed doors. By the way Colorado had to repeal that amendment because of the boycott thrown at the state by hollywood. So much for a state's right to Sovereignty.
If one were to extend the logic behind the practice of giving special rights to certain groups, we might get to the point that people who have lower IQ's shouldn't be discriminated in the workplace. (and if you think that is farfetched, trying working for a government agency where mediocrity is rewarded, sort of). Where would that lead our society? No one would strive to be great.
On the other hand, people who are gay have been discriminated on, and thats not right. Gay people, whether one considers it to be acceptable or not, are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. I know many Christians who are appauld at gay people saying they are sinners. Well, as so many people have said, a sin is a sin, is a sin. And believe me, there are plenty of "Christians" who sin, some of them, with far less regard to human life and dignity than any gay person I ever met.
I agree with you that perhaps Congress should just outlaw any form of discrimination. But I am not sure that would be effective. It is our moral values or lack thereof that is what needs an overhaul and as the person who commented just prior to me said, if an employer wants to fire you, he will no matter what the excuse. Many states have also adopted the "employee at will" doctrine which states that a person can be let go for no reason whatsoever at any time, and with no warning.
So you may be right, Congress could be spending their time on more important issues, like the national and trade deficit, violence, etc.
>If I owned a business why couldn't I hire and fire whoever I wanted, for whatever reason? After all, it is MY business.
Because the Fourteenth Amendment says you can't if you deal with the public and the reason for the firing is discriminatory. Firing has to be based on job performance, not personal qualities. What if an employer wanted to fire people because they were white? Or Christian? Or had served in the military? They have the same protections as other groups and these things would be illegal.
>was people didn't want another group given special rights,
Being protected from fired arbitrarily isn't a special right, it is simply a right.
>since being Gay should be a private matter and not open to the general public, just like any sexuality issue, keep it behind closed doors.
I think most people would agree with this, but when someone is fired for being gay in their private life, it isn't them who is making it a public issue, it is whoever fired them.
>By the way Colorado had to repeal that amendment because of the boycott thrown at the state by hollywood. So much for a state's right to Sovereignty.
States do not have a right to sovereignty. Under Article VI of the Constitution, the federal government is Supreme (meaning no sovereignty). The Civil War pretty much settled the matter of state sovereignty. Also, under the Fourteenth Amendment, states cannot deny individual civil rights, even if they want to. Besides, issues of states rights and sovereignty only deal with governmental action, the actions of private citizens (such as a boycott) are completely legal and don't violate any constitutional provisions.
>If one were to extend the logic behind the practice of giving special rights to certain groups, we might get to the point that people who have lower IQ's shouldn't be discriminated in the workplace....Where would that lead our society? No one would strive to be great.
But you can't extend logic this way. This is the slippery slope fallacy, among others. Most people who strive to be great do it because of their own personal belief that it is the right thing to do, not because of some government program.
The person's appearance could have been unacceptable. If a guy walked up to his job with mascara then I sure hope he'd be fired. Attire matters everywhere and people are judged upon it. Meaning sagging pants, piercingsc and all that jazz would have to be excepted also.
In many places it is actually legal to discriminate against gay people. So a law that outlaws this would not be redundant.
Where is it legal to discriminate against gay people? If it's against the law to discriminate against minorities and women, why is it okay to discriminate against gay people?
I don't think this will fly because say the person, who is gay, is preforming badly at their place of work and gets fired. What's stopping him or her from saying he was discriminated against?
In many states, homosexuality is not included in anti-discrimination laws. That's why Congress is trying to pass a universal law to cover the topic. If you are in a state where this is the case, then you can claim that you were discriminated against, but since it's legal to discriminate in those states based on sexuality, you would lose the lawsuit.
Post a Comment