Gay Rights Backers Split on Bias Bill [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

View Full Version : Gay Rights Backers Split on Bias Bill

875000

10-12-2007, 06:44 AM

WASHINGTON - Rep. Barney Frank, a leading gay rights champion in Congress, on Thursday urged fellow gay rights advocates not to let their dispute over protecting transgender workers doom a job discrimination ban that could mark a major civil rights advance for gays in the workplace.

The debate over including transgender people has sharply divided gay rights activists, many of whom are trying to kill a stripped-down bill without protections for transgender workers that Frank and Democratic leaders hope will win House passage this year.

"We're not going to be split off this way," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We're driven by principle. No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind - and we're not about to be the first."

Frank, D-Mass., one of two openly gay members of Congress, supports transgender protections, but said they don't have the votes.

"Politically, the notion that you don't do anything until you can do everything is self-defeating," he said.

Frank said the public has more awareness because gay activists began educating people about the unfairness of prejudice based on sexual orientation a long time ago.

"These things take awhile," Frank said. "The transgender issue is of relatively recent vintage."

Legislation banning workplace discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals _ but not those who have had sex-change surgery or cross-dressers _ has stalled after an outcry from the transgender community and its allies, including many gay rights organizations.

"Transgender" is an umbrella term that covers transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance doesn't match their gender at birth.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Churches and the military would be exempt.

But when Democrats took vote counts and realized the measure would fail, they substituted a new scaled-back version dropping transgender people from the bill. A second bill to ban workplace discrimination against transgenders was also drafted.

Gay rights groups that oppose a ban that leaves out transgender people have waged an aggressive lobbying campaign.

"Fighting your friends can sometimes be difficult," said Frank.

Foreman agreed.

"I never thought in a million years we would be on the opposite side of Barney Frank and it is painful," he said.

Federal law bans job discrimination based on factors such as race, gender and religion. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against sexual orientation discrimination.

However, only nine states specifically protect transgender people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington. The District of Columbia also has a similar law.

By January, laws also will be in effect in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20071012/twl-transgender-politics-1be00ca.html

Latrinsorm

10-12-2007, 10:58 AM

Celephais

10-12-2007, 11:05 AM

Foreman is definitely in the wrong on this one: not having transgendered legislation this instant doesn't mean you'll never ever get it. How does he justify screwing over everyone this bill would have protected in the meantime?
Fully agree... he has to see how this bill getting through would only help his cause, not just protecting his allies, but setting a precedent of sorts, being able to come at it again and say "how absurd is it you can't discriminate on sexual orientation, but you can on cross-gender".

TheEschaton

10-12-2007, 11:21 AM

And he's wrong that civil rights movements haven't left populations behind temporarily while they fought for more mainstream rights.

Some Rogue

10-12-2007, 11:34 AM

I think it's absurd that I can't say I didn't hire some guy because he's built like a football player and wears a skirt and makes me and my company look stupid.

Celephais

10-12-2007, 11:42 AM

I think it's absurd that I can't say I didn't hire some guy because he's built like a football player and wears a skirt and makes me and my company look stupid.
I do agree... but I also think it's absurd I can't say I didn't want to hire someone because they're gay because they make our customers uncomfortable, or I can't say I don't want to hire an indian because I can't stand the smell of them. but if I don't have those reasons, I imagine not hiring based on transgender would be in the same vein.

And yeah I think there is a difference between not hiring someone who's transgender and hides it well/can be professional, vs not hiring an obvious drag who looks unprofessional for something like a sales position.

Tea & Strumpets

10-12-2007, 11:49 AM

I think it's hilariously absurd for a guy to put on a dress and wig and then be asked to be referred to as a woman --- or it's discriminatory. How fucking ridiculous can you get!? I'm all for people to be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit, but don't ask me to pretend you're not a nutjob when you do.

I am a pony trapped in a man's body, and in the future I will be wearing a pony outfit when going to work.

Celephais

10-12-2007, 11:55 AM

Sean

10-12-2007, 11:57 AM

Foreman = Necromancer?

Some Rogue

10-12-2007, 12:01 PM

Tea & Strumpets

10-12-2007, 12:05 PM

And I shall call you Pony Boy from now on..

I will see you in court.

Some Rogue

10-12-2007, 12:11 PM

I will see you in court.

Nay! Not til this bill passes.

Latrinsorm

10-12-2007, 04:22 PM

How fucking ridiculous can you get!?Next thing you know those uppity coloreds will be wanting to vote or something.

TheEschaton

10-12-2007, 06:03 PM

Mighty Nikkisaurus

10-12-2007, 06:10 PM

Errr, it all depends on whether you consider this issue one of nature vs. nurture.

I know quite a few transgendered people who are born with, say, the parts of males, but actually physically have a gender neutral genetic makeup like XXY, and feel like they express better as women. So if they dress like women and ask to be called Kelly instead of Charles, it sure as hell is discriminatory for you to judge that.

-TheE-

Not to mention that most of these people, you'd never even guess.

A lot of these discrimination bills aren't to keep you from not hiring them, it's to keep you from firing them the second you somehow discover that the nice secretary lady you've hired actually has male sex organs and for no other reason than YOU don't like the fact that she dresses as she does.

Drew

10-12-2007, 06:12 PM

I know quite a few transgendered people who are born with, say, the parts of males, but actually physically have a gender neutral genetic makeup like XXY, and feel like they express better as women. -

You know a lot of people, transgendered, Armenians, whatever the thread is about, you know people.

Drew

10-12-2007, 06:14 PM

TheEschaton

10-12-2007, 06:15 PM

I know 1 Armenian (well, her, and her mother). I know about a dozen transgendered people.

What can I say, I know lots of people. I don't just walk down the street muttering to myself about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize.

TheEschaton

10-12-2007, 06:16 PM

I kind of agree that behavioral things shouldn't be covered by the bill, which is what cross-dressing is in most cases: men who simply like to wear women's clothing and do nothing to hide the fact that they are men.

Transgendered + cross-dressing, though, is a different story.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

10-12-2007, 06:17 PM

And btw, there are some people who are ambiguously gendered. This bill would protect them sure, but it would "protect" all the messed up in the head people who want to change their gender because they "feel like a woman/man/dolphin", and that's the messed up thing. I feel bad for people born ambiguously gendered but I don't feel like we should have to hire nutjobs.

Most people who dress as the opposite gender do so because of a genetic problem. I don't think that people who simply LIKE the feel of women's clothing but feel that they are men are being excused by a bill like this- that's behavioral. But someone having a penis and yet feeling like a woman and wanting to wear a woman's clothing I feel is ONLY that person's business and that we have no right to judge that.

You're not allowed to fire someone because they suffer a mental illness, so why would you be allowed to fire someone because they suffer a mental problem that you happen to not understand?

Just because someone happens to have a penis doesn't make their feeling of being a woman any less valid (or vice versa). As far as I'm concerned, these people deserve just as much empathy because they live their lives like the gender they feel they are to the best of their ability and yet are viewed as freaks because their only offense is that they happen to have sex organs of the gender they DON'T feel like.

As I pointed out before- typically you don't even know unless they tell you or it gets out to you somehow. The amount of transgendered people in this world is large enough that it doesn't make sense that most people go through their lives only being able to recognize transgendered individuals when they're blatantly so- i.e. Mardi Gras drag queens, etc. Who are actually mostly just cross-dressers (and not transgender people)

Snapp

10-12-2007, 06:35 PM

As I pointed out before- typically you don't even know unless they tell you or it gets out to you somehow.

True that. I actually hired a transexual myself about a year ago and didn't have a clue until about a month later when it came up in conversation. It's really not a big deal.

Some Rogue

10-12-2007, 06:38 PM

You know a lot of people, transgendered, Armenians, whatever the thread is about, you know people.

Yeah, quite a few people on here use that argument...."Oh yeah, well I know 35 different people who were born with one leg, then molested by priests as a child and then were forced to pray in school!"

Seran

10-12-2007, 08:31 PM

I'll have to agree that the point of this bill is primarily for occupational protection for establish employees, even if it has language against discriminitory hiring practices. You can make up what ever reason you want for not hiring someone, that's why there are interviews.

To fire someone after the fact for their sexual preferences is bigotry, plain and simply and deserves to be protected. If your decision to fire someone whom you also made the decision to hire is based on their same-sex choices, then you're simply full of hate. But then again, if you don't know how to fire someone without obscuring the reason, then you're just stupid.

However, someone's right to dress in clothing of the opposite sex should not be protected. As was stated prior, it's a behavioral issue.

875000

10-12-2007, 09:08 PM

My own $0.02.

The US is an "employment at will country." This means as long as there are not restrictions in place by law, a person can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

If the transgendered restrictions go into effect, an employer can still fire a man for wearing a red tie as opposed to blue. However, if the same employee decided to also accessorize the outfit with a wig and pumps, then they the employer has opened the company up to a discrimination lawsuit.

If lawmakers were serious about protecting others with a XXY chromosone count, then their emphasis should be on narrowly defining what transgendered means. Problem solved. It is telling, however, that no one seems to want to go there.

Seran

10-12-2007, 10:35 PM

My own $0.02.

The US is an "employment at will country." This means as long as there are not restrictions in place by law, a person can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

Except for the fact that if one dismisses an employee without cause, you become open to possibly crippling wrongful termination lawsuits. This is one of the main reasons so many employers have added "at will employment" language to so many employment contracts.

Sean of the Thread

10-12-2007, 10:50 PM

good fucking luck with the wrongful termination shit. You have to sign so much shit when getting a job now.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

10-12-2007, 11:33 PM

good fucking luck with the wrongful termination shit. You have to sign so much shit when getting a job now.

Good point and very true.

875000

10-13-2007, 01:47 AM

>>Except for the fact that if one dismisses an employee without cause, you become open to possibly crippling wrongful termination lawsuits. This is one of the main reasons so many employers have added "at will employment" language to so many employment contracts.<<

Not really. Employers add all of that as an extra layer of protection. However, the law is still in their favor for the most part even without it. The default legal status of employment in the US is at-will employment.

For references: http://employeeissues.com/wrongful_termination.htm and http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm

According to Employeeissues.com:

"If the discharge is not illegal, then it's not likely to be wrongful termination in the legal sense, regardless of how unfair it seems.

For example, if a manager unfairly discharges an employee clearly in violation of a specific discrimination law, then the discharge was illegal and thus, likely to be wrongful termination.

But, if a manager unfairly discharges an employee because of an unresolved personality conflict that adversely affects the employment relationship, then it's not likely to be an illegal discharge and thus, not likely to be wrongful termination. More examples of what might make an employment discharge illegal are on the next page."

The reality is, US Labor and Employment law makes it pathetically easy to fire someone. And, it is actually difficult to prove discrimination or other illegal termination practices.

Seran

10-13-2007, 01:58 AM

According to your same website:
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
An implied agreement that it's the duty of employers to treat employees honestly, fairly and ethically, especially dedicated, long-term employees. Examples of an employer's breach of this covenant include firing employees to avoid granting them earned rewards, fabricating reasons to fire or layoff employees, and coercing employees to quit. (See also Constructive Discharge.) Only a few states recognize breach of this covenant as an exception to the Doctrine of Employment at Will. Compare to Implied Contract.

Let us not forget the joys of 'hostile work environment' and 'retaliation', and retaliation would go hand in hand with a employer terminating an employee whom had a good working relationship and recently publically outted themselves.

We could debate the points, but more often than not a settlement is reached.

875000

10-13-2007, 03:17 AM

For others' reference: http://employeeissues.com/legal_glossary.htm#GoodFaith

I do understand why you may believe what you cited: in many case the legal definitions and precidents have different meanings from the way normal people speak. However, a number of your assertions are incorrect.

Focusing specifically on what you cited, please note:

1. The description itself noted that "Only a few states recognize breach of this covenant as an exception to the Doctrine of Employment at Will," meaning in an overwhelming majority of states, the laws still favor the employer discharging an employee (assuming nothing illegal -- like racial discrimination -- was a factor).

2. There was a reference to "Implied Contract," in which A) an employer promises something to an employee, like permanent employment or rewards, and then renegs on that promise and B) is still not recognized by most states.

3. The other reference was to cooercian, which has specific references to unionization (which is why they asked you to "see Constructive Discharge"). This, while actually illegal according to the National Labor Relations Act, is hard to address through the courts. Employers tend to win. The ones that don't usually still fend off the unionization drive (their real objective), while the discharged employees spend years in the courts and win very little.

Now, stepping beyond the section you mentioned, you raised the spectre of two other topics which are worth explaining.

4. Retaliation: Retaliation under US labor and employment law means something very different than what you are claiming it means. Basically, it means an employer taking an action against you after you report them violating the law in the first place. Retaliation does not cover interpersonal conflicts or even things that an employer may find distasteful (like wearing the aforementioned tie, wig, or seven currently sexual preference). For reference, please see: http://employeeissues.com/retaliation.htm

5. Hostile work environment: Again, "hostile work environment" legally means something very different then what you imply they mean. To be illegal under one of the laws in the eyes of the courts, "a hostile work environment typically must be caused by discriminatory workplace harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age or sex. Additionally, the harassment typically must be severe, recurring and pervasive. Lastly, the victim or witnesses typically must reasonably believe that tolerating the hostile work environment is a condition of continued employment." The key here is that actual discrimination -- by age, race, gender, religion, or physical disability -- needs to be pervasive in the workforce, in which case federal and state laws are already being violated. Simply having an abusive boss who makes fun of your clothes or you personally is not enough.
For reference, please see: http://employeeissues.com/hostile_work_environment.htm

In short, you are incorrect in asserting that a person would have a case on either of these two fronts if " a employer terminating an employee whom had a good working relationship and recently publically outted themselves."

Final note: your assertion that "more often than not a settlement is reached" is also incorrect. More often than not, dismissals lacking felonous motives never even see the court dockets because:

1. HR departments are increasingly viewing actions through legal lenses, meaning that there is little ambiguity before actions are taken
2. People realize they do not have a legal ground, and thus they realize the risk of losing is high
3. People cannot afford the time and monetary commitments of persuing a case that they have little chance of winning and where they payout tends to be slight
4. Many companies have people sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, in which employees forgo their rights to sue in courts and instead have the matter settled by an appointed mediator (Never sign one of these if you can avoid it)

Sean of the Thread

10-13-2007, 03:24 AM

This thread hit .05 stars pretty damned fast.

Some Rogue

10-13-2007, 11:13 AM

This thread hit .05 stars pretty damned fast.

Needs more Pony Boy?

Latrinsorm

10-13-2007, 11:18 AM

However, someone's right to dress in clothing of the opposite sex should not be protected. As was stated prior, it's a behavioral issue.It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was medically considered a behavorial issue, and I would suggest that the percentage of the population that still do is more than negligible. I'm not saying I personally believe crossdressing is somehow genetic, but I am saying that legitimizing discrimination against a "behavioral issue" can lead to suboptimal results.

Drew2

10-13-2007, 11:21 AM

Trannies are weird and I don't like being lumped with them.

That's all I have to contribute.

Tsa`ah

10-13-2007, 02:54 PM

My own $0.02.

The US is an "employment at will country." This means as long as there are not restrictions in place by law, a person can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

Incorrect. Many states are "at will", not every state. Employees are protected as much, if not more, in almost every state and by federal law.

A person can be fired without fear of redress if said employee "willfully" violates policy or law. Burden of proof is always on the employer.

With out proof of willful violation, said employee has a pretty good legal standing for a wrongful termination claim ... and of course unemployment benefits.

If the transgendered restrictions go into effect, an employer can still fire a man for wearing a red tie as opposed to blue. However, if the same employee decided to also accessorize the outfit with a wig and pumps, then they the employer has opened the company up to a discrimination lawsuit.

If a man is fired for wearing a red tie, policy has to be timely place prohibiting red ties, the employee has to document that he/she accepts the policy (either when they're hired or if the policy is changed), and the employer has to follow through with documentation that the employee not only accepted the policy but repeated violated the policy.

I think you're over reacting on accessories. Companies that set up dress codes of any fashion are not likely to be cornholed for enforcing dress codes that are within reason.

In any case, I wouldn't hesitate in the termination of any employee that willfully violates policy. That includes a manager that shows up in male business dress with make up, wig, and pumps. I doubt this legislation would protect that sort of behavior.

If lawmakers were serious about protecting others with a XXY chromosone count, then their emphasis should be on narrowly defining what transgendered means. Problem solved. It is telling, however, that no one seems to want to go there.

We're not talking about a specific genetic occurrence. We're talking about the accepted definition and making sure everyone is protected by basic civil liberties.

If you're a homophobic jackass, get a job somewhere you don't have to worry about the gays and transgendered .... simple conservative argument.

good fucking luck with the wrongful termination shit. You have to sign so much shit when getting a job now.

Signing anything does not mean you give up rights or the ability to take a claim to court.

Tea & Strumpets

10-15-2007, 11:08 AM

Next thing you know those uppity coloreds will be wanting to vote or something.

Good analogy, it doesn't make you look like an imbecile.

Man's greatest weakness is the ability to rationalize and justify any behavior. If you feel I'm unenlightened because I realize the football player in a mini skirt that would like to be called "Georgina" is a certified nutjob, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

And earlier in the thread I said I was a pony, but I have since realized I am a rhinoceros. I stomp my feet, the dust stirs around my tough skinned feet.

Some Rogue

10-15-2007, 11:24 AM

Oh bloodninja be serious.

CrystalTears

10-15-2007, 11:27 AM

It doesn't get more serious than a rhino about to charge your ass. :D

Tea & Strumpets

10-15-2007, 11:36 AM

I know you guys are just joking, but I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so and make me feel welcome when I show up to work in my rhino costume.

Sean

10-15-2007, 11:40 AM

Only if Robin Williams doesn't kill you 1st Smoochy.

Latrinsorm

10-15-2007, 11:54 AM

If you feel I'm unenlightened because I realize the football player in a mini skirt that would like to be called "Georgina" is a certified nutjob, that's a price I'm willing to pay.It's not your fault that you haven't capped a character in GemStone. Once you do, you'll understand. :)

In all seriousness, it's not a question of enlightenment. It's a question of recognizing the pattern. There are people on this board who were alive when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, for pete's sake. You don't have to high-five Buddha to figure this stuff out, just think.

Tea & Strumpets

10-15-2007, 11:57 AM

Only if Robin Williams doesn't kill you 1st Smoochy.

Haha, nice reference. Funny movie.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0266452/C421-14a.jpg

Tea & Strumpets

10-15-2007, 12:03 PM

In all seriousness, it's not a question of enlightenment. It's a question of recognizing the pattern. There are people on this board who were alive when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, for pete's sake. You don't have to high-five Buddha to figure this stuff out, just think.

You are just saying that because you have long hair like a gurl. :D How Buddha got dragged into this is beyond me.