Time To Ban Job Discrimination Against Gays
On Sept. 5, Michael Carney, an openly gay Massachusetts police officer, eloquently told members of the House of Representatives why the Employment Non-Discrimination Act continues to be essential. Mr. Carney, who endured job discrimination once he made the courageous decision to come out to his colleagues, said, “Had I not been successful in fighting the bias that tried to prevent me from working, all the good I have done for some of the most vulnerable people in my community would never have happened.”
If passed this autumn, the legislation, known as ENDA, would protect the freedom of Americans like Officer Carney to do the jobs that they love without enduring constant discrimination and harassment. The legislation would finally make it illegal for employers to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Unfortunately, this legislation remains necessary. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, but Americans in 31 states continue to be fired or denied employment because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result, many gay and transgender citizens must make the unacceptable decision between being open about their identity - and risking retribution - or staying in the closet with the hope of keeping their jobs.
Since I worked to draft the original version of ENDA in 1993, this legislation has faced an uphill battle in Congress. However, things are changing. ENDA enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. A 2006 national Gallup Poll reveals that 89 percent of respondents support equal job opportunities for gay people, and 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies now have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Across the country, employers large and small are recognizing that inclusive employment policies improve recruitment, decrease turnover and boost productivity.
As these developments illustrate, an overwhelming majority of Americans share my conviction that society should protect the liberty of all people to do their jobs. If the government accommodated all the private prejudices of employers, this would deny citizens the equal opportunity to do the jobs for which they are qualified. Just as the government does not allow private beliefs about race, religion and sex to adversely affect the employment opportunities of Americans, it should not allow private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity to adversely affect the careers and livelihoods of gay and trans- gender citizens.
Corporate executives and entry-level factory workers alike have shared in the shattering experiences of discrimination. While some lose their jobs, others feel the effects of bias in more subtle ways. For example, a 2007 survey found that gay men earn 10 percent to 22 percent less than straight men with the same education, experience, race, occupation, and geographic location.
Of course, gay people may eventually find other employers who do not discriminate against them, but this does little compensate for their sense of pain and indignity. The burden that some employers may face under ENDA is necessary for ensuring that all Americans have the freedom and security to build their careers.
As Officer Carney told members of the House of Representatives, “Discrimination impacts the lives of everyone. It not only deprives people of their livelihoods and safe working conditions, it also robs the public of vital services that they would have otherwise received from talented and dedicated workers.”
People in our society will disagree on some issues. But, in spite of our differences, we should come together and recognize that all Americans must have the freedom and dignity to do their jobs. That requires the swift passage of ENDA.
Chai Feldblum is professor of law at Georgetown University and director of Georgetown Law Center’s Federal Legislation Clinic. Her e-mail is feldblum@law.georgetown.edu.
© 2007 The Baltimore Sun
Yes, the legislation is essential, but it does not work very well. I have lived in two communities with such legislation on the books, Dallas, TX and Fort Lauderdale, FL. Yet the discrimination still occurs. It is just that the “official” reason for being dismissed is something other that for being gay. And complaints about discrimination often get buried in legal hassles.
So when you claim discrimination for being gay or lesbian, it gets deflected and the gay man or lesbian is accused of making a false claim.
Civil rights is still mostly wrongs.
The only job I would ban gays from is conservative law maker.
If you can fire someone for being gay, can you also fire someone for using a condom? After all, they are both considered immoral by the Catholic Church.
A person’s sexuality is created by the Gods. Anyone who can withstand the outragious slings and arrows of of former Nazis like Wrath Slinger and his bigoted band of Zealots is the better person for it. Certainly more interesting.
People used to discriminate against left handed people who’s only ‘crime’ was thinking in their right mind.
Why do Progressives feel they always have to support the Gay lifestyle any more than the Conservatives feel the need to constantly tear them down? It is certainly questionable that lack or change of sexuality is created by God. Many people do very strange things because other people are doing them and not because they cannot help their condition. Unfortunately. the involvement in gay problems seems to be helping the Reps in retaining voters and hurting Dems. Possibly stem cell research and support of choice on abortion would be enough of that type of issue. How can we progressives ever help anyone out if we never can regain any power to bring some action about?
Kernel: Because individual rights are important. Do you want the government telling you who you can and cannot have sex with? How you can do it? Whether or not you can use or own toys or sexual reading or viewing material?
What the christian right fails to grasp is that their own god gave mankind freedom of choice according to their own bible, and will only judge in the afterlife. The whole effort to enforce christian morality and commandments by governmental law is against their own religious code. Of course, even if it wasn’t we’re supposed to have freedom of religion and separation of church and state, but still the irony of them breaking their own edicts is quite sadly hilarious.
Xenophobia and intolerance drives the right wing machine to use all their power to enforce conformity, it’s not based on their religion. They use their religion to enforce the prejudices and bigotry they already had. It’s the kind of people they are, they’re herdlike, narrowminded , petty and insecure by nature, and it makes them bullies. Ignorance and arrogance leads to prejudice. It’s the same thing everywhere. The same kind of people pollute islam and judiasm too, and if my own paganism were the majority faith, then all the same losers would flock to it and befoul it the way they ruined christianity.
It’s just how it works.
Kitty_tc____ I appreciate your comments on the gays. However, both old and new testaments of the Bible treat homosexuality as a sin, although you are right in that we may choose whether or not to sin in any way, which we all do. When the gays did their thing in private, it was not such a problem for others, but to bring their lifestyle into the society and expect to have it approved made the situation we have now. When I was growing up we all knew about them but there was not much mention and so consequently not a problem. I agree that the right-wingers are far away from the religion they espouse.
To Kernel:
Actually, they don’t. The two passages in the old testament that condemn “men who lie with men” use a term that is better translated as ritually unclean, that is, unable to participate in worship services until a period of cleansing has occurred. The same term, usually translated abomination, also applies to eating shellfish, touching (or being) a menstruating woman, and having acne.
The famous passage about Sodom and Gomorrah refers to the sin being inhospitality, even Jesus in the gospels refers to inhospitality being the sin.
Speaking of the New Testament, because the old is exhausted of Same Sex passages (and none about lesbians) we turn to the New Testament. Jesus says nothing.
Paul does, it is true. Three times. The passages in 1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy both use the word arsenokoitai. A word found no where else in ANY Greek text. So what did Paul mean by it. Certainly not homosexual as that word only dates to the middle of the Nineteenth Century as a reference to same sex attraction. Arsenokoitai is derived from two words man and bedchamber meaning??? Both passages also refer to malakoi (literally soft) who are men who were considered effeminate by the standards of the day. So would most modern men by those ancient standards.
That leaves Romans and the men and women behaving unnaturally with each other. Well to Paul unnatural covers a lot of ground. Women who went out in public and worked, did not cover their head, talked to men who were not blood relatives were all engaged in “unnatural” behavior. In fact, any deviation from the cultural norms of the Ancient Judeo-Greek world of Paul’s understanding was the sign of God’s disfavor and disregard.
Of course, you don’t have to believe me, there are a number of books written by people with degrees in theology, 1st Century history, and other expertise who say the same thing. Namely that it is a shallow and empty Christianity that puts words in God’s mouth condemning people who identify themselves as Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and/or Transgendered.
Is absolutely astonishing that in 2007 some Americans are not guaranteed the same rights as all other Americans. Their is no legitimate excuse why this still is. It’s one of the many stains that now tarnish American democracy.
As for the religious arguements against homosexuality, they have no place in the implementation of the legal rights of a monority…homosexual or otherwise. One’s religious beliefs on the subject are personal and have no bearing on the legal rights of others. If you believe your religious dogman dictates that a particular group is less worthy than any other, so be it. It’s your right to believe so, but one fundamental tenet of democracy that so many these days seem to forget is one person’s rights end where those of anothers begins. Religious freedom in absolutely no way supersedes the basic rights of any individual. If you believe it does, you’d be much more at home in a theocracy than a democracy.