Dallas May Make History, Not that there's anything wrong with that

Not if you aren't in denial.

 

Uh you most certainly can fire someone for being gay.

In fact, your not hearing about it is proof of the problem. Many gays are closeted. Due to societal pressures and norms, they are compelled to hide their identity and as a result, they can't really sue for wrongful employment discrimination since they would require coming of the closet.

Here's the GAO report on employment discrimination for sexuality.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d02878r.pdf

First it concludes, that federal law does not protect gays and lesbians and second it gives numbers for complaints of employment discrimination for states that have protections.

Remember, if the state offers no protection, it's basically impossible to file a case outside of trying to make it a landmark case.

 

Did you see the earlier post detailing the states and cities that offer protection, while there is no federal protection?
If you did, and are just ignoring it by saying you want specific evidence of someone being fired, you're being hard-headed and unfair. You actually think nobody in this country is fired for being gay? There are a lot of red states, you know.

If the context of this discussion is only whether the fight for gay rights is a civil rights issue or not- fine. But you're the one who's constantly acting as judge for the victim olympics. Expect people to respond in kind.

 

Whats the percent of racial discrimination cases?

I see sexual orientation discrimination cases as around 2-3% in most cases with Vermont(!!) having a high of 5.2% in 1997.

Why the hell hasn't some kind of federal law been pushed? Where's the movement on this issue?

 

this topic is gay

 

Shouldn't be too surprising. This country had the balls to reject the equal rights amendment to give full protection to women.

If we won't even give proper legal protection to the ladies, it shouldn't surprise anyone that we're ignoring GLBT people.

 

That amendment is a joke. Women already have equal protection.

 

You have Proof? Please Post.

Rocket River

 

That's true today but only because the courts have developed more expansive interpretations of existing law.

In the 60s and early 70s, that really wasn't the case.

 

Oh my god. I'm stunned.

There are LGBT groups nationwide fighting tooth and nail for gay rights every day of the year. There are conservative family value groups fighting tooth and nail against the "gay agenda."

To say that there is no discrimination against gays because there is no federal law protecting them... that's just plain wrong. That makes absolutely zero sense. It's exactly the opposite! There is no federal law protecting homosexuals because it's still a widely accepted form of discrimination! Amongst the "family value" bigots in this country, it isn't discrimination- it's fighting the good fight against a sinful sickness sweeping the country. You obviously have no perspective to the scope of it.

Have you ever lived in the south? Have you only lived in a large city your entire life?

You say that you've never heard of anyone being fired for being gay, as if it's evidence. You say there are protections against that. You are proven wrong. You then respond by saying that because there's no law, there must be no problem- an amazing conclusion.

 

Everything points to it being biological.

It isn't known why people are born left handed either. But it is accepted because there is no agenda against it.

 

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

Federal Civil Rights

The Federal government has been resistant to support LGBT civil rights legislation. As of 2007, sexual orientation and gender identity are not covered by the federal civil rights code.The Federal hate crimes code also does not include sexual orientation or gender identity.

Sexual orientation was grounds for excluding immigrants until 1991 and the United States Armed Forces actively discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,although it follows an official policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Thus much of the civil rights protection for LGBT Americans has often come at the state and local level.


State Civil Rights

US LGBT civil rights policies
Animation of the evolution of such policiesThirteen states had reformed their state civil rights code (or experienced court decisions) to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while another seven had amended their civil rights code to only include sexual orientation. Aside from state law, about a hundred cities in thirty three states had enacted some type of civil rights legislation that includes sexual orientation.

Ten states have a hate crime statute that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity, while twenty-two states only include sexual orientation and the rest of the states either do not have a hate crime statute or have one that only covers such things as race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality.


Major LGBT Supreme Court Cases
In 1958, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a lower court's ruling and thus, established a precedent that a homosexual publication was not intrinsically "obscene" and thus protected by the First Amendment.

On May 22nd, 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which among other things banned homosexuals, as constitutional. This ban remained in effect until 1991.

On June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick, that homosexual citizens had no constitutional right to privacy.

On May 20, 1996, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Romer v. Evans against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

On March 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also applied when both parties are the same sex. The lower courts, however, have reached differing conclusions about whether this ruling applies to harassment motivated by antigay animus.

On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment right to exclude people from its organization on the basis of sexual orientation, irrespective of any applicable civil rights laws.

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy or homosexuality can no longer be a civilian crime when it is limited non-fraternal, non-commercial acts between consenting adults in private, and the age of consent should be the same for all citizens; irrespective of sexual orientation, thus overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. However, sodomy is still a federal crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.






So.... no civil rights fight here, folks. Nothing needs to be defended. Nobody discriminates against gays. Why make a federal law for it, when there isn't a problem?

 

I thought the last study concluded that people had varying degrees of leanings towards homosexuality

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_empl.htm

Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

Background:
Many Americans believe that persons of different sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are protected against job discrimination. Not so. There are laws against employment discrimination on the basis of gender, race, and other grounds. But most states do not have a law protecting the jobs of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_empl1.htm

Do gays and lesbians need employment protection?
A number of surveys promoted by conservative Christian organizations claim that gays and lesbians have higher incomes than heterosexuals, and thus have no need of civil rights protection in employment.

Perhaps the most famous survey is the one conducted by the Simmons Market Research Bureau in 1988-OCT. It is commonly promoted by the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Freedom Heritage Forum and other conservative Christian groups. The conclusions were reported in The Wall Street Journal in 1991-JUL. The raw data looks impressive:

Average household Income: Homosexuals: $55,430; National Average: $32,286/yr
Percent College Graduates: Homosexuals: 60%; National Average: 18%
Workers in Professional or Management Jobs: Homosexuals: 49%; National Average: 16%
Taking overseas vacations: Homosexuals: 66%; national average: 14%

The problem with the data is that the values quoted for "homosexuals" are in no way representative of the average gay and lesbian. the survey was taken among homosexuals who subscribe to one of 8 leading gay newspapers; they thus belong to a select group within the les/gay community.

A study by Dr. Lee Badgett of the University of Maryland showed that gays earn from 11 to 27% less and lesbians earn 5 to 14% less than the national average. Dr. Kenneth Sherril of Hunter College in New York City conducted a study which showed that the economic penalty of homosexuals was less. The American Civil Liberties Union claims that "the only thing close to a representative survey suggests that lesbians and gay men generally earn less than their heterosexual counterparts."

But even if the average homosexual earned more than the average heterosexual, there would be still be many gays and lesbians discriminated against in employment, and in need of legal protection.

 

You do realize you're trotting out the typical "I have lots of black friends" line?

Wrong again. There is not universal hate crime protection for gays in America. And that's because conservatives actively fight against it, which you can read about in Wikipedia and other resources. Is this opening your eyes at all, or should I stop trying?

The evidence of discrimination against gays in the workplace is overwhelming. The burden lies on you to show that it is not a problem.

At this point I have to think you are being willfully ignorant. I can't imagine why, though.

This is a civil rights issue, and has been fought for decades now.

 

Has anyone actually made a real argument as to why extending legal protection to GLBT people is bad? I've seen plenty about how gays and lesbians don't face as many hardships as racial minorities but other than that, I'm stumped for an answer.

The only one I can come up with is the slippery slope argument but I thought NewYorker did a very solid job of answering that point.

 

I'm not trying to mke light of the situation because I think it's incredibly stupid to fire someone simply because they're gay, but could fat and short people not also make their own lobby for this?

 

There are varying degrees of left-handedness too.