4 ms·

I found this one very striking: "Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual ori

by praptak 12y ago

I found this one very striking: "Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation." Could anyone provide details? I wonder whether it is an explicit "Being gay is grounds for firing" or rather just plain lack of protection from firing for being gay?

DanBC 12y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#LGBT_employment_discrimination http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law...
- praptak 12y ago
  Thanks. It seems it is the latter. In some states the list of things forbidden to discriminate on misses sexual orientation. The wording used in the article was closer to the former.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > In some states the list of things forbidden to discriminate on misses sexual orientation. It doesn't miss it, that would imply an unintentional oversight. There might have been a time when it was just not something people thought of including (although the fact that homosexuality was often explicitly criminalized also suggests that was not the case), but by now there is no state where there has not been an effort to get such protections on the books, so it is, in every case where it is not explicitly protected, a deliberate exclusion.
GI_Josh 12y ago
I'm no expert, but I suspect this is just referring to work "at will" states, where you can be fired without being given a reason. Thus, it could actually be for anything: Your orientation, your work performance, that ugly shirt you wore yesterday. Doesn't matter.
- chrisBob 12y ago
  The issue is that there are specific protections for things like age, race and religion, but not sexual orientation. I consider orientation, like race, to be something that you are born with that deserves the same protections.
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    Even if it's not, everyone should be free to do and be who they are - it should only influence one's employment if it actually affects said employment, like (for example) alcoholism or explosive flatulism (fire hazard)
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    In an "at will" arrangement, you will never be fired for "protected" traits. With "at will" employment, you can be fired for no reason at all, so no reason will ever be given that could possibly trigger legal liability. It makes all those "protections" completely toothless. In order to win a case, you would need to provide extensive documentation, probably collected via clandestine recordings, that would be able to convince a jury by preponderance of the evidence that you were fired for a protected reason, and not simply because the company no longer wanted to pay you for your work. Besides that, one of the selling points of "at will" was that making it easier to fire people would make it easier to hire people. Anecdotally, I have not found this to be the case. Companies simply find it easier to discriminate based on things like race, gender, perceived sexual orientation, weight, religion (or lack thereof), disabilities, appearance, or age, because it is easier for them to deny that those are the factors that they consider in hiring and firing. As Apple execs engaged in collusion with other companies to weaken workers as a class via an anti-poaching cartel, Tim Cook is hardly able to take a non-hypocritical position about sexuality discrimination in the workplace. When all workers are weakened, the ones that are most often discriminated against often suffer the most, because they are the marginal hires in more places.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    Of course, there's a huge difference between orientation and behaviour. One can't help how one's born, but one can help how one behaves.
dragonwriter 12y ago
In most states, employment law is structured such that the absence of explicit protection means that it is a valid grounds for firing. The laws on the books that create this structure, combined with the absence of an explicit protection for sexual orientation, constitute laws on the books that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation.

by praptak 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#LGBT_employment_discrimination http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law...

praptak 12y ago
Thanks. It seems it is the latter. In some states the list of things forbidden to discriminate on misses sexual orientation. The wording used in the article was closer to the former.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In some states the list of things forbidden to discriminate on misses sexual orientation. It doesn't miss it, that would imply an unintentional oversight. There might have been a time when it was just not something people thought of including (although the fact that homosexuality was often explicitly criminalized also suggests that was not the case), but by now there is no state where there has not been an effort to get such protections on the books, so it is, in every case where it is not explicitly protected, a deliberate exclusion.

GI_Josh 12y ago

I'm no expert, but I suspect this is just referring to work "at will" states, where you can be fired without being given a reason. Thus, it could actually be for anything: Your orientation, your work performance, that ugly shirt you wore yesterday. Doesn't matter.

chrisBob 12y ago
The issue is that there are specific protections for things like age, race and religion, but not sexual orientation. I consider orientation, like race, to be something that you are born with that deserves the same protections.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  Even if it's not, everyone should be free to do and be who they are - it should only influence one's employment if it actually affects said employment, like (for example) alcoholism or explosive flatulism (fire hazard)
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  In an "at will" arrangement, you will never be fired for "protected" traits. With "at will" employment, you can be fired for no reason at all, so no reason will ever be given that could possibly trigger legal liability. It makes all those "protections" completely toothless. In order to win a case, you would need to provide extensive documentation, probably collected via clandestine recordings, that would be able to convince a jury by preponderance of the evidence that you were fired for a protected reason, and not simply because the company no longer wanted to pay you for your work. Besides that, one of the selling points of "at will" was that making it easier to fire people would make it easier to hire people. Anecdotally, I have not found this to be the case. Companies simply find it easier to discriminate based on things like race, gender, perceived sexual orientation, weight, religion (or lack thereof), disabilities, appearance, or age, because it is easier for them to deny that those are the factors that they consider in hiring and firing. As Apple execs engaged in collusion with other companies to weaken workers as a class via an anti-poaching cartel, Tim Cook is hardly able to take a non-hypocritical position about sexuality discrimination in the workplace. When all workers are weakened, the ones that are most often discriminated against often suffer the most, because they are the marginal hires in more places.
- wtbob 12y ago
  Of course, there's a huge difference between orientation and behaviour. One can't help how one's born, but one can help how one behaves.

dragonwriter 12y ago

In most states, employment law is structured such that the absence of explicit protection means that it is a valid grounds for firing. The laws on the books that create this structure, combined with the absence of an explicit protection for sexual orientation, constitute laws on the books that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation.