Lawmakers vote to protect gay, lesbian workers

[LiberalNation]

Good for the house. If other groups are protected no reason gays shouldn't be.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071108/ts_nm/usa_congress_gays_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led House of Representatives on Wednesday defied a White House veto threat and voted to protect millions of Americans by outlawing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"This is truly a historic day," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told her colleagues. "Discrimination has no place in America."

The measure passed 235-184, falling far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a possible veto by President George W. Bush.

Democrats vowed to try to mount support, but face stiff opposition from the religious right and others in what's been a 30-year effort to enact such legislation into law.

While the House-passed bill drew praise from civil rights groups, it elicited the ire of lesbian and gay organizations that sought broader protection for members of their diverse community.

Sent to the Senate for concurrence, the bill would prohibit employers from considering sexual orientation in deciding whether to hire, fire or promote someone.

But the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would not cover transgender men and women -- those whose gender identity differs from their birth sex.

In a letter to House members, a coalition of nearly 400 gay, lesbian and transgender groups wrote that it opposed the legislation because it "leaves some of us behind."

Democrats had initially sought transgender protection. But many backed off when they realized they did not have the votes, and feared transgender coverage could sink the bill.

"I wish we had the votes in this House to ban discrimination of all sorts," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a chief sponsor of the measure and one of two openly gay members of Congress.

"I wish for a lot of things, but I will not act on my wishes irresponsibly," Frank said.

Rep. Howard McKeon, a California Republican, opposed the bill, warning it "could result in the exact opposite effect its supporters intend by creating new pressures on employers to consider and even document their employees' sexual orientation, actual or how it is perceived, in order to guard against litigation."

It's now legal in 30 of the 50 U.S. states to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. A recent study found that 16 percent lesbians and gays reported being dismissed or denied a job because of their sexual orientation.

"There are millions of our fellow citizens, gay or lesbian, who live in fear that they could be fired because they live in states where there is no such protection," Frank said.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill, which has been described as a proposed extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination based on race, sex and national origin.

In a statement, the White House said, "The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance and enforcement extremely difficult."

Mostly Republican critics also complained the bill, despite Democratic claims to the contrary, would inadequately exempt religious institutions from the proposed law, and could even undermine state laws banning same-sex marriage.

Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council, which opposed the bill, said the proposal would permit "mainstream homosexuality, bisexuality ... and provide activists a legal tool for punishing employers who do not approve of these lifestyles."

Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York spoke in favor of ending workplace discrimination, but then announced he would vote against the measure, saying it did not go far enough.

"I believe it is important we take a principled stand now, and speak with a strong and united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender," Nadler said.

[82Marine89]

In a letter to House members, a coalition of nearly 400 gay, lesbian and transgender groups wrote that it opposed the legislation because it "leaves some of us behind."


Such a poor choice of words.



Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York spoke in favor of ending workplace discrimination, but then announced he would vote against the measure, saying it did not go far enough.

"I believe it is important we take a principled stand now, and speak with a strong and united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender," Nadler said.

You go Nads.

[avatar4321]

All this really benefits is lawyers. Trust me.

How I long for the day when people were actually free to hire and fire people as they choose. Freedom traded in the name of diversity.

The real question is if people don't want to work with you for some discriminatory reason, why would you want to force them to work with you? Do you really want to work with people that hate you?

[theHawk]

Nazi Pelosi says,"Discrimination has no place in America." Sorry, but I beg to differ. This is simply an attempt to mandate forcing other people to accept what is normally unacceptable behavior. True, people shouldn't discriminate people for things that are out of their control - gender, race, ect. But we damn sure have the right to 'discrimiate' against certain types of behaviors. Namely, unacceptable ones. I don't have to accept and condone homosexual behavior, just like I don't have to accept any other type of immoral behavior like pedophila.
This is just an attempt by the libs to blur their pro-gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. Which, by the way, is highly insulting to many blacks and minorities.

[Pale Rider]

Don't worry. Bush will veto it.

[JohnDoe]

i don't understand the authority of the federal gvt with this issue, can someone that is for it please explain where in the constitution does the federal gvt have the power to legislate this, i would have presumed that this issue is given to the States or the People, according to the constitution?

This is what i object to...

jd

[Hobbit]

i don't understand the authority of the federal gvt with this issue, can someone that is for it please explain where in the constitution does the federal gvt have the power to legislate this, i would have presumed that this issue is given to the States or the People, according to the constitution?

This is what i object to...

jd

It started in earnest back in the FDR days (though it's been in play for a while before that). The Congress likes to use the 'interstate commerce' clause to justify everything they do that they shouldn't. Either that or the 'necessary and proper' clause.

[darin]

...so if my CHURCH wanted to hire somebody as an associate pastoer, they wouldn't be allowed to not-hire somebody who wasn't a believer?

Christianity itself will be outlawed eventually, all in the name of, ironically, "tolerance"

Sad, sad, SAD state of society where ppl would vote for this kind of crap. Sadder still there are perhaps MILLIONS of demented souls cheering them on.

[glockmail]

It started in earnest back in the FDR days (though it's been in play for a while before that). The Congress likes to use the 'interstate commerce' clause to justify everything they do that they shouldn't. Either that or the 'necessary and proper' clause. You give them too much credit. Half these jokers don't know what the Constitution is. They think its a "living, breathing document".

[theHawk]

You give them too much credit. Half these jokers don't know what the Constitution is. They think its a "living, breathing document".

Yea the Constitution is living and breathing but a fetus is not. :lame2:

[glockmail]

Yea the Constitution is living and breathing but a fetus is not. :lame2:
When you base decisions on what feels good for you at the moment then logic flies out the window.

[Yurt]

LiberalNation;149371]Good for the house. If other groups are protected no reason gays shouldn't be.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071108/ts_nm/usa_congress_gays_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led House of Representatives on Wednesday defied a White House veto threat and voted to protect millions of Americans by outlawing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So now the government can control my thoughts and actions at my private workplace. Sounds like "freedom" to me. Heil democrats.



"This is truly a historic day," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told her colleagues. "Discrimination has no place in America."

This is an effing lie. Discrimination exists in every culture/race. Whats next, a bill to protect the lazy ass coworker... Hey, he is just efficiently challenged...


While the House-passed bill drew praise from civil rights groups, it elicited the ire of lesbian and gay organizations that sought broader protection for members of their diverse community.


Diverse community? Screw that. That is a load of horse puckey.



"I believe it is important we take a principled stand now, and speak with a strong and united voice for equal rights for all Americans, whether they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender," Nadler said.

Psst, those are not "equal" rights, they are special rights that straight people do NOT have. I was canned by a homo manager when I was 18. He was kinda hitting on me, so I told my girlfriend to come by the store when I knew he was working and would see me "mackin" on her. One week later I was fired.

This is not equal, far from it.

[Pale Rider]

You can thank the faggot barney frank for trying to push this horse shit into law, and then you can thank President Bush for vetoing it.

[JohnDoe]

When you base decisions on what feels good for you at the moment then logic flies out the window.
I can't imagine an abortion "feeling good", not physically or mentally for any of the women that choose to have one. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together saying goody goody goody.... :( let;s go out and get pregnant again so I can go through this operation again.

jd

[Hobbit]

I can't imagine an abortion "feeling good", not physically or mentally for any of the women that choose to have one. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together saying goody goody goody.... :( let;s go out and get pregnant again so I can go through this operation again.

jd

The act that results in pregnancy is what feels good. The abortion is just a way to escape the consequences.

[Yurt]

I can't imagine an abortion "feeling good", not physically or mentally for any of the women that choose to have one. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together saying goody goody goody.... :( let;s go out and get pregnant again so I can go through this operation again.

jd

his comment was not a logical: only and if. you are committing a black or white fallacy.

[JohnDoe]

I don't think someone should be fired for being gay. Not if they were already hired and were doing their job efficiently and if they kept their sexual prefference outside of the workplace.... just as a bisexual worker should keep their sex life out of the work place.

But at the same time most of our states are "right to work" states, which means the owner can fire you at any time with no notice for any reason or no reason.

I don't see how this legislation would work and I do not see how the feds can be the regulator of this... it would be discrimination of straight workers. Only straight workers could be let go and not have recourse while gay workers would have recourse through some sort of discrimination crud? Doesn't make sense in the "right to work" states?

[darin]

I don't see how this legislation would work and I do not see how the feds can be the regulator of this... it would be discrimination of straight workers. Only straight workers could be let go and not have recourse while gay workers would have recourse through some sort of discrimination crud? Doesn't make sense in the "right to work" states?

That's why Avatar suggested this legislation will ONLY benefit Lawyers. :(

[Immanuel]

I don't think someone should be fired for being gay. Not if they were already hired and were doing their job efficiently and if they kept their sexual prefference outside of the workplace.... just as a bisexual [or straight] worker should keep their sex life out of the work place.

I completely agree with you here. It doesn't matter what the sexual preference of the worker is. He/she should keep it out of the workplace.

A point though and I think you were trying to say this is that it is not up to the government to make that decision for us.

I would ask anyone of us on here, especially those who are what the liberals would term "homophobic", if you suddenly found out that your best employee, was gay, would you fire him(or her) simply because he/she was gay. I'd hope that the answer would be an emphatic "Hell No". There is no way I would fire even my least dependable employee over this.

Immie

[Pale Rider]

I would ask anyone of us on here, especially those who are what the liberals would term "homophobic", if you suddenly found out that your best employee, was gay, would you fire him(or her) simply because he/she was gay. I'd hope that the answer would be an emphatic "Hell No". There is no way I would fire even my least dependable employee over this.

Immie

I've said before many times here, it isn't the homo I find disgusting. It's his/her lifestyle and sex habits I find disgusting. It's not my job to judge them. God has already made it clear how he feels about homos, so no, I wouldn't fire them. They do their job, they're every bit as welcome to it as the next person.

But you were talking about finding out if someone was "happy," what's that got to do with anything?

[glockmail]

I can't imagine an abortion "feeling good", not physically or mentally for any of the women that choose to have one. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together saying goody goody goody.... :( let;s go out and get pregnant again so I can go through this operation again.

jd
What they are saying is that this young life is unimportant compared to what they want here and now, as in a few months or a few years time frame. Me, I'd have life-long reoccuring nightmares about my aborted son or daughter coming to visit me.

[Yurt]

I don't think someone should be fired for being gay. Not if they were already hired and were doing their job efficiently and if they kept their sexual prefference outside of the workplace.... just as a bisexual worker should keep their sex life out of the work place.

But at the same time most of our states are "right to work" states, which means the owner can fire you at any time with no notice for any reason or no reason.

I don't see how this legislation would work and I do not see how the feds can be the regulator of this... it would be discrimination of straight workers. Only straight workers could be let go and not have recourse while gay workers would have recourse through some sort of discrimination crud? Doesn't make sense in the "right to work" states?

Fair post JD. What exactly is discrimination? The reason this country has affirmative action (which is slowly on its way out thank goodness) is because people believed that some amount of discrimination, past and present, needed to be regulated by the government. I repeat, the government.

So, should the government legislate thought control? You seem to not be sure, so I ask.

should someone who is gay not be fired? What if I believed that the united states should be bombed, now. Would you want me fired?

[Immanuel]

But you were talking about finding out if someone was "happy," what's that got to do with anything?

I was?

Oh nevermind... you're referring to "gay". I'm tired almost didn't catch it.

Immie

[Hobbit]

Nobody's going to agree with me here, but my inner libertarian is just itchin' for some action, so here goes:

I think that any non-government employer should be able to legally fire any employee at any time for any reason, whatsoever. Then let the free market decide if those hiring practices are acceptable. If you were to only hire whites, go ahead, though you can probably only expect Klansmen and the like as patrons and employees. Don't like women? Fine, don't hire them and don't accept them as patrons, but don't expect an overabundance of straight men in your establishment, especially single ones. If you want to hire only Asians, blondes, people with blue eyes, or only guys named 'Joe,' then it should be your right to do so.

[Pale Rider]

Nobody's going to agree with me here, but my inner libertarian is just itchin' for some action, so here goes:

I think that any non-government employer should be able to legally fire any employee at any time for any reason, whatsoever. Then let the free market decide if those hiring practices are acceptable. If you were to only hire whites, go ahead, though you can probably only expect Klansmen and the like as patrons and employees. Don't like women? Fine, don't hire them and don't accept them as patrons, but don't expect an overabundance of straight men in your establishment, especially single ones. If you want to hire only Asians, blondes, people with blue eyes, or only guys named 'Joe,' then it should be your right to do so.

I would suspect Hobbit that that is exactly what happens more often than not. How would anybody prove otherwise? You as an employer can lie through your teeth as to why you hired this person instead of that, and no one would ever be able to prove otherwise.

[Yurt]

Nobody's going to agree with me here, but my inner libertarian is just itchin' for some action, so here goes:

I think that any non-government employer should be able to legally fire any employee at any time for any reason, whatsoever. Then let the free market decide if those hiring practices are acceptable. If you were to only hire whites, go ahead, though you can probably only expect Klansmen and the like as patrons and employees. Don't like women? Fine, don't hire them and don't accept them as patrons, but don't expect an overabundance of straight men in your establishment, especially single ones. If you want to hire only Asians, blondes, people with blue eyes, or only guys named 'Joe,' then it should be your right to do so.

don't be so negative

[avatar4321]

Like I said earlier, why would you want to work with someone who hates you?

[JohnDoe]

Like I said earlier, why would you want to work with someone who hates you?
I wouldn't want to work for someone who hated me... But at the same time, if I were doing the job I was hired to do, I would want to have enough time to find another job, so that I could move onward and would not want the peopple that turned out to hate me, to FIRE ME before I could get that new job. If they fired me just because I was gay and not because of performance or any other reason and gave me no notice or severence pay, I would be pretty damn pissed and could be out of luck bigtime if I had a huge mortgage to pay....without any income coming in.

Then again, this goes for anyone, not just a gay person.... I would think if the employee that they want to lay off for their own personal reasons, that they would at least give them some notice so that they can get another job....

But, I live in fantasy land and that doesn't happen in many cases.

But at the last job I was at, I worked for the company over three years, was downsized with 600 others worldwide, but I got a months notice and 6 months severence pay from them and my health insurance for 6 months paid for by them as long as I did not sue them for laying me off and kept my non compete clause (couldn't work for a competitor for 6 months after leaving)....and this is what they offered, I did not even have to negotiate this...so I might have been able to get more
but some of my employees who had been with them for years longer than me... got basically nothing and no notice at all that they were going to be part of the layoffs and I felt very badly for them... :(

jd

[Immanuel]

I would suspect Hobbit that that is exactly what happens more often than not. How would anybody prove otherwise? You as an employer can lie through your teeth as to why you hired this person instead of that, and no one would ever be able to prove otherwise.

I once had a guy tell me when I called about a job that he only wanted to hire a woman. I decided then and there that I didn't want to work for him anyway, but when I hung up, I was not too pleased. I thought about calling back a couple hours later and telling him that I was with the Department of Labor and that a complaint had been filed against him.

He would have deserved it.

Immie