Author Topic: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections  (Read 2957 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« on: August 28, 2009, 01:09:40 PM »
Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections

Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:10 PM
 
Momentum is building for Congress to pass the first major civil rights act protecting gays and transsexuals, supporters say, and one of the stars in the debate is a barrier-breaking transgender staffer on Capitol Hill.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit workplace discrimination, including decisions about hiring, firing and wages, based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would exempt religious organizations, the military and businesses with less than 15 workers.

The driving force behind the bill has been Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the longest-serving of the three openly gay members of Congress. He expects hearings on the measure to be held this fall.

Frank pushed the nondiscrimination act in 2007, but it foundered because of insufficient backing in the Senate and a split within the gay and transgender communities. Many activists were irate because Frank, seeking support from wavering colleagues, was open to covering sexual orientation but not gender identity, excluding transgender people from protection.

This time around, several factors have changed:

Barack Obama is president and on record supporting the act. A veto was considered possible if the 2007 bill had reached then-President George W. Bush.

The act's core supporters, including Frank, have agreed they will push only for a bill that includes gender identity.


The bill has picked up key support in the Senate, where it was introduced this month by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley and Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Even without other GOP senators, Merkley believes it has a good chance of obtaining the 60 votes that probably will be needed to pass the Senate.

The main Senate champion of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the past had been Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who died Tuesday. That role was passed on to Merkley this year.

There is another difference from 2007. Frank now has a policy adviser who is a female-to-male transsexual. Diego Sanchez is the first transgender person hired for a senior congressional staff position on Capitol Hill.

Sanchez has done extensive face-to-face lobbying for the act, and Frank says that's enabled some members of Congress to get to know a transsexual for the first time.

"He interacts with a lot of people," Frank said. "Prejudice is literally ignorance."

Frank says he now doubts votes will be cast against the act solely because it extends to transgender people.

Sanchez is a longtime activist who worked for the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts and was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention last year before joining Frank's staff. Back in 2007, he was among a minority of transgender activists who accepted Frank's tactical decision to drop gender identity from that version of the act.

"He's called on the entire community since then to lobby, work — and the community has said, 'OK, we've got one game plan, and it's Barney,'" Sanchez said. "There's broader support this time."

The act's opponents, led by several national conservative groups, concede that the bill has enough support to clear the House and expect a closely fought battle in the Senate.

Ashley Horne, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, promised that her conservative Christian ministry would encourage tough opposition.

"It's definitely a bill we will put a lot of resources toward fighting," she said. "Our primary concern is the chipping away of religious liberties."

Twenty-one states have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity: California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender.

The experience of these states shows that passage a federal law is unlikely to unleash a flood of litigation and conflict, Frank and Merkley say.

Minnesota, for example, has had a nondiscrimination law covering transgender people since 1993 that rarely triggers controversies. Oregon passed a comparable bill in 2007.

"There were concerns there'd be a huge number of lawsuits _ it simply didn't materialize," Merkley said.

However, attorney Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, said the act would impose its provisions on more conservative states with more business owners who have religious objections to hiring gays and transsexuals.

Campbell also worries that the act will serve gay-rights activists' long-term strategic interests.

"One of the really big problems with enacting ENDA is in the future litigation battles dealing with same-sex marriage," Campbell said. "It will provide ammunition for homosexual activists in the future to push their agenda in the court system throughout the country."

Some conservatives say the act is unnecessary.

"There is no epidemic of homosexuals being fired; in fact, they are increasingly being courted by major corporations," contends Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. "It's religiously devout employees . . . who face reprisals for opposing homosexuality."

The National Center for Transgender Equality disagrees. It recently released a survey of 6,500 transgender Americans that said 91 percent had faced bias at work.

Among those claiming harassment is Toni Maviki, a former corrections officer in New Hampshire who said another guard pummeled her after learning she was transitioning from being a man to being a woman.

"I carried a badge and I protected all you people and there was no law to protect me from harm," Maviki testified this year.

Maviki said she filed complaints that led to further harassment, and finally quit her job. Her testimony failed to sway a state Senate committee, which voted against extending anti-bias provisions to transgender people.

National gay-rights groups will be watching how the act fares this year this year.

"We're further than we've ever been, but there is certainly still work to be done," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "It is frustrating sometimes, having to explain to the community that there are so many procedural hurdles in our way."
 
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_gay_rights_bill/2009/08/27/253194.html

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2009, 01:13:11 PM »
why does it not suprise me that a fucktard like frank would be the driving force behind this idiocy

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2009, 01:23:18 PM »
One of the problems with this is the attempt to include "gender identity."  If they want to make transvestites and transsexuals a protected class, they should simply say so instead legislatively creating a new "gender" category.   

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2009, 02:16:58 PM »
Just pretend to be a fag and now you cant get fired.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2009, 02:22:09 PM »
More stupid bullshit,

Affirmative action for gays and transvestites next?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Hereford

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2009, 01:23:11 AM »
You guys DO realize that it is very important to protect attention-seeking behavior in the workplace these days don't you? Matter of fact... it's probably the most important issue we have in this country these days.





















 ::)

bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2009, 03:48:28 AM »
i love this country.  Equal Justice Under Law.  don't like it?  Go fuck youself   :)

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2009, 06:12:19 AM »
Maybe they'll protect people's right to blog, facebook, myspace, etc.. while working on someone else's dime next. :)

bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2009, 07:55:59 AM »
Maybe they'll protect people's right to blog, facebook, myspace, etc.. while working on someone else's dime next. :)
  individual rights on private property(facebook, myspace, certain blogs)?

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2009, 10:42:57 AM »
i love this country.  Equal Justice Under Law.  don't like it?  Go fuck youself   :)

;D

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2009, 10:45:36 AM »
i love this country.  Equal Justice Under Law.  don't like it?  Go fuck youself   :)
yes b/c Affirmative action etc...doesnt discriminate

Sir Humphrey

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1288
  • It's only gay if you want it to be.
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2009, 10:50:20 AM »
How dare these militant homosexual recruiters/activists dare to ask for protection from discrimination in the work place? Don't they know they might offend the homophobic sensitivities of "Ninny Ninmaugh" and other neanderthals?  >:( >:( >:(


 :P

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2009, 11:19:26 AM »
  individual rights on private property(facebook, myspace, certain blogs)?

No. The right to not conform to company policy.

I mean really... be as gay as you like but no one should have to suffer seeing a dude in drag just so his feelings won't be hurt. Most people don't even give a fuck if someone's gay unless forced to.

Most of it is attention seeking and people should grow the fuck up and concentrate on things other than their sexual identity throughout the day.

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2009, 12:36:00 PM »
Just pretend to be a fag and now you cant get fired.

not too many years ago, women could get fired for getting married, or getting pregnant.  or employers could choose not to hire single men or women.   it was perfectly legal for an employer to say that now that you're going to have children, you're not going to be as committed to this job as we need, so goodbye.   then various states and finally Congress passed a law that outlawed discrimination based on gender or marital status.   plenty of women still get fired, just not for deciding to get married or have children.   And like all anti-discrimination laws, it works both ways.   Employers can't hire/not hire/fire/promote a male because they are single, or married, or have children, or don't have children.

this new federal law would make it illegal to use sexual orientation or gender identity when deciding whether to hire/not hire/fire/promote anyone.    it would make it just as illegal for an employer to not hire an otherwise qualified person because they're straight as it would be to not hire someone because they're gay.  many states already have this law

you can hire and fire people all you want.  you just can't use race, religion, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in your decision making process.

grab an umbrella

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2009, 12:56:06 PM »
not too many years ago, women could get fired for getting married, or getting pregnant.  or employers could choose not to hire single men or women.   it was perfectly legal for an employer to say that now that you're going to have children, you're not going to be as committed to this job as we need, so goodbye.   then various states and finally Congress passed a law that outlawed discrimination based on gender or marital status.   plenty of women still get fired, just not for deciding to get married or have children.   And like all anti-discrimination laws, it works both ways.   Employers can't hire/not hire/fire/promote a male because they are single, or married, or have children, or don't have children.

this new federal law would make it illegal to use sexual orientation or gender identity when deciding whether to hire/not hire/fire/promote anyone.    it would make it just as illegal for an employer to not hire an otherwise qualified person because they're straight as it would be to not hire someone because they're gay.  many states already have this law

you can hire and fire people all you want.  you just can't use race, religion, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in your decision making process.

Companies should be able to hire and fire as they please.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2009, 01:51:34 PM »
How many companies are really going to hire a dude that shows up for an interview dressed in drag?

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2009, 01:58:23 PM »
you can hire and fire people all you want.  you just can't use race, religion, creed, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in your decision making process.

I don't have a problem with any of this accept gender identity. Gender identity? who thought this clever term for transvestites. If you want to dress in drag do it on your own time.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

grab an umbrella

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2009, 02:03:57 PM »
I don't have a problem with any of this accept gender identity. Gender identity? who thought this clever term for transvestites. If you want to dress in drag do it on your own time.

Private companies should be able to hire based on anything they choose.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2009, 02:16:29 PM »
Private companies should be able to hire based on anything they choose.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you, but in the brave new world it just doesn't work that way.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2009, 02:21:41 PM »
I don't have a problem with any of this accept gender identity. Gender identity? who thought this clever term for transvestites. If you want to dress in drag do it on your own time.

dressing in drag is not the same as gender identity.  dressing in drag is taking on a persona for a short period of time.  this is more living their whole life as a male or a female, sometimes as part of sexual reassignment hormone therapy and/or surgery.  

the thing is, you probably run into butch females living their lives as male all the time, and you don't really have a problem with it.  these females don't sometimes dress feminine and sometimes masculine.  They're not 'sometimes in drag' or 'can wear drag on their own time'.   Every day they wear short hair, no makeup, only wear clothes they bought in the men's section of the department store.   You may think it out of the ordinary, but you're not threatened by it.  you really don't feel they should be forced to wear dresses and makeup.   But a male in that situation, one who wants to wear makeup or wear frilly things, that makes you feel threatened.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2009, 02:30:40 PM »
Threatened? Sorry but just because I find a man wearing makeup and dressing in "frilly" things abnormal doesn't mean I am threatened by it.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2009, 03:02:05 PM »
Threatened? Sorry but just because I find a man wearing makeup and dressing in "frilly" things abnormal doesn't mean I am threatened by it.

then why do you think it should be ok to discriminate against such people in the workplace?

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2009, 03:10:19 PM »
then why do you think it should be ok to discriminate against such people in the workplace?

Never did I said cross dressing. Some men are just more "feminie", doesn't have to mean they are gay either. I work with people from many coutries, religions, creeds, sexual orientation and I don't have a problem with them as long as they do their job and keep their personal life personal.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18188
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2009, 07:38:03 PM »
dressing in drag is not the same as gender identity.  dressing in drag is taking on a persona for a short period of time.  this is more living their whole life as a male or a female, sometimes as part of sexual reassignment hormone therapy and/or surgery.  

the thing is, you probably run into butch females living their lives as male all the time, and you don't really have a problem with it.  these females don't sometimes dress feminine and sometimes masculine.  They're not 'sometimes in drag' or 'can wear drag on their own time'.   Every day they wear short hair, no makeup, only wear clothes they bought in the men's section of the department store.   You may think it out of the ordinary, but you're not threatened by it.  you really don't feel they should be forced to wear dresses and makeup.   But a male in that situation, one who wants to wear makeup or wear frilly things, that makes you feel threatened.

Pleas don't take this the wrong way, Tim.

You're full of shit.

Any time someone disagrees over something trivial you really can't argue they "feel threatened", are "secretly gay" or a "bigot" and expect to be taken seriously. I really respect you as a poster but can't abide this degree of intellectual laziness. :P

timfogarty

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7115
  • @fogartyTim on twitter
Re: Congress Moves Toward Gay Workplace Protections
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2009, 08:55:51 PM »
Pleas don't take this the wrong way, Tim.
You're full of shit.
Any time someone disagrees over something trivial you really can't argue they "feel threatened", are "secretly gay" or a "bigot" and expect to be taken seriously. I really respect you as a poster but can't abide this degree of intellectual laziness. :P

don't confuse your gays.  Bay's the one that thinks everyone is secretly gay.

and I'm not arguing individuals 'feel threatened', but I think there is plenty of evidence that society is much more tolerant of females taking on non-standard characteristics than they are of males, that society 'feels threatened' when ever masculinity is challenged.    Why is it easier for women celebrities to be open about their sexuality?  Why is it hardest for men in hyper-masculine cultures like pro sports and hip-hop music?