Be aware.
For those who think we don't need federal legal protection for LGBTs, this map shows where you can still be FIRED simply for being gay. And it happens daily. We have much work to do.
Me: Incorrect.
B.R.: Source?
Me: You first.
P.N.: Partly true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp
B.R.: Rich - thank you for asking me to provide the sources, I like practicing accountability in these matters, and it helped me learn a lot. Here's a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg
B.R.: Oh cool! Hey Rich, here's another source to back it up. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf
Me: The issue is being characterized incorrectly, or may I suggest, deceptively. "States where you can be fired for being gay" is as meaningful as saying "States were you can be fired for wearing red shoes." The correct characterization is "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays."
My state, Montana, does not. Its anti-discrimination statute reads, " It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for... an employer to refuse employment to a person, to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race, creed, religion, color, or national origin or because of age, physical or mental disability, marital status, or sex..." 49-2-303
However, Montana is not an "at will" state. (http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm). After satisfying a probationary period, an employee can be fired only for cause.
You'll note in the link I supplied that there is quite a variation amongst states regarding employment law, so to suggest that people can be summarily fired is simply inaccurate.
And we can't overlook other factors that govern employment, like union membership, contract employment, temporary employees, the self-employed, and individuals who work for politically progressive private employers. Taken together, the picture you posted is at best factually incorrect, and at worst, intentionally hyperbolic.
B.R.: Great, thanks for even more detail. If I concede to all your references and points, will you agree that LGBT workers deserve legal protection equal to non-LGBT workers?
Me: No bargain is necessary. The issues are what they are.
I happen to think that all anti-discrimination laws ought to be repealed. These are voluntary associations amongst private parties, and the government has no business intervening in our right to freely associate.
K.S.: "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays" translates to me, "States where you can lawfully be fired for being gay." The issue stretches beyond political technicalities and into the fabric of our society so deeply that sure enough, homophobic people within said states will (and have) take advantage of the lack of any laws protecting gay employees; thus, firing them unfairly with no other reason other than the fact that they are gay. Certainly, this may be masked under some other lame guise but it still doesn't give the gay community any safeguards against discrimination in the workforce; a blazing issue because other minorities do have such laws protecting them from discrimination.
B.R.: Does the government have any business protecting any citizens from harm? Your scenario is terrifying when viewed from the perspective of any minority in America. I respect and have learned greatly from your perspective on personal freedom, but your dismissal of LGBT civil rights and your preference for the freedom to discriminate both reek of unconsciousness and unexamined privilege.
K.S.: Moreover, all states are "at will" states. Meaning they can all get fired but the states listed above fall into loopholes that prevent them from getting sued.
Me: K.S., perhaps you should read the link. All states are not "at will."
B.R.: You mean the part that says, "Virtually all states are employment at will states, meaning that all states uphold the Doctrine to some degree. To what degree states uphold the Doctrine regarding employers' rights to discharge employees varies by state." ?
Me: I mean the part that says, "Montana is unique in the degree at this writing, in that it upholds employment at will only when new-hires are working during a probationary period (defaults to six months from hire date under Montana law). Outside of that, employers in Montana must have good cause to discharge employees."
K.S.: I read your link but per the definition of federal law, all states are "at will" states. Meaning, people hire at will and similarly, a worker can quit at will. Where it differs is when public-policy exceptions come into play. This is what allows said states to circumvent discriminatory laws and openly discriminate upon employees because they do not have the exception. Implied Contract Exceptions convolute the issue even further, placing the burden of truth of unlawful firing solely on the employee. This is what I meant when I said that the issue stems far beyond the notion of "at will." What is disturbing is that the states wherein you can be fired for being gay, have buffers in place to protect *them* from egalitarianism. Egalitarianism, by definition, is democracy; something that the US proudly purports to be. This is an interesting and alarming concept to ponder because these states use the notion of democracy to practice open discrimination because egalitarianism means equality. In other words, they are equal and have the "right" to NOT practice equality. Messed up, isn't it??
Me: Terrified, B.R.? What a strange choice of words. People who have freedom always take a risk, but I value freedom more than I fear risk.
K.S.: Even the "freedom" to discriminate?? But isn't that taking away other people's freedom?
Me: Egalitarianism: "a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights, or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power." Calling egalitarianism democracy is a category error.
K.S.: Egalitarianism means equality. Democracy sits on the platform of fairness and equality.
B.R.: Terrified is a pretty middle of the road way of describing what I'm talking about and what you're not acknowledging. Ever been fired for something you can't control? Ever been excluded by your peers with no way of confronting them about it? Ever been bullied by people that hate you for no good reason? Ever been cornered and intimidated because of your personal lifestyle? Ever been mocked publicly and screamed at and spit on and urinated on? Ever had your ass groped by a stranger? Ever had your dick grabbed by another man?
Me: We discriminate all the time. I discriminated against every other woman in the world when I proposed to my wife. I chose a hamburger without cheese, thus discriminating against cheeseburgers. I bought my house in a neighborhood that didn't have mobile homes.
Me: Democracy does no such thing. Democracy is a horrible system of governance.
Me: B.R., yes to many of those situations. In no instance did I run to government like a child to demand they punish the perpetrators.
K.S.: What you're describing are personal freedoms. A workplace is no longer in the arena of personal/individual interests. Therefore, you cannot try to equivocate the same reasoning and actions to it. Trying to do so is offensive and debases the human rights issue that is gay rights. My personal feelings are this: It's a two-way street. If you want personal freedoms and liberties how can you, in good conscience, use that to justify taking away other people's freedoms and liberties?? It's a messed-up argument that hinges on moral corruption and hypocrisy. Fundamentally, everyone should be treated fairly and equally. Hence, why states have implemented laws that protect the gay community in the workplace. Bottom line, being fired for sexual orientation and nothing else is wrong.
BG.R.: I commend you on your solitude. Do you have another suggestion of how to prevent such atrocities from happening to others in the future?
K.S.: Rich, from your argument above what you're describing is a totalitarian government.
O.F.: This is me chiming in so I can follow this excellent discussion. Keep goin', guys! I'm listening.
Me: K.S., I appreciate your articulate positions. I have enjoyed many an exchange with B.R. in similar respectful environments. So I will continue to disagree with you in a manner which leaves continued dialogue open.
A workplace is a situation created by private association between willing parties, a contract of sorts. So long as the contract serves a legal purpose and was not coerced, the government ought to have no involvement at all. This means an employer can simply decline to enter into an agreement, as can a potential employee. No reasons need be given, because it's voluntary. A more formal contract can be engaged as well which spells out terms of employment. All this is perfectly acceptable.
I think all states need to be like Montana, which means an employment relationship can only be terminated for cause. That solves every problem that has been described in this thread without the political posturing regarding illusory concepts like fairness.
A totalitarian government is exactly opposite of what I'm describing. A totalitarian government is a "political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life." I want to roll back that power and let people be adults and control their own lives.
Me: B.R., you're given to a bit of hyperbole today. Atrocity? As I mentioned to K.S., the only thing that needs to be changed is to change state law to "for cause."
K.S.: While a workplace is certainly an exchange between willing parties (after all, slavery no longer exists) it cannot be described as a private association once the federal and state tax breaks/involvement come into play. At this point it becomes, to some degree, a government entity, since it is being supported by the entire realm of the public sector.
With this knowledge, why should a person help support a workplace that abuses and uses them (directly or indirectly)?? This is the notion that spurred the cultivation of unions and greater laws to prevent such inequities from happening. At the very least, it gives the worker a voice to defend themselves. Everyone deserves a defense. What makes the above states dangerous (including Montana) is that they do not allow such defenses to happen. In effect, the employer sits above the law and can mistreat and discriminate against employees but that employee still has to pay taxes and support a government that allows the discrimination to happen.
If our government truly aims to achieve freedom and equality then, said employers must abide by these fundamental philosophies. What's interesting, is that Rich is taking the concept of equality to the other end of the spectrum. From what I gather, his argument is that people are "free" to take away other people's freedoms. It's "at will" so if they don't like it then they can leave. Its not that black and white. Legalities of the system reach far deeper, intrinsically binding the discriminated party to the discriminator. Its an issue of fairness and equality in a world of legal jargon and exceptions. The listed states are equipped with exceptions that allow them to openly discriminate. Hence, the original statement holds true; You can be fired the above states FOR being gay.
Me: Are you justifying your argument for this government involvement because government is involved in other ways? My simple response is that government ought not be giving tax breaks to business, nor should it be giving tax-exempt status to churches or charities. I do not accept the vapid idea that because government is involved "there" that it ought to be involved "here."
The idea that private business is in any way a government entity is repugnant and fascist (classical definition). Business is not an arm of government. There is no justification on any level for private parties being coerced to serve the aims of government. In actual fact, you want business to carry out government objectives because you happen to agree without those objectives, but what happens when government changes and you no longer agree with its new direction? How do you roll back that interventionist government then?
No one is "free" to violate someone's rights, and I haven't advocated such a thing. I have advocated just the opposite. Government is impeding the right of its citizens to freely associate.
Me: One clarification. Government violates peoples' rights. Individuals commit crimes.
Me: One clarification. Government violates peoples' rights. Individuals commit crimes.
K.S.: I fully agree with you on revoking the tax breaks that are given to churches. I believe that since they too openly discriminate that they should not be afforded that luxury. As far as government involvement, you're proposing an entire change in the utopia; one that I personally feel is impossible and will never happen. Therefore, I think that accepting government involvement and thereby, expecting the government to do what they were hired to do and *govern* fairly and justly is paramount. That is why the US is a democracy. And private business is absolutely a government entity. Ever hear of a business license, or permits or business zoning? But back to the original statement; you can be fired in the above states for being gay is true. From what I've gathered, your argument has only given reasons and excuse as to why this should remain legal.
Me: I can stand on my principles, pipe dream though they may be. Since the interventionist model you like is so clearly not working, I may eventually live to see personal liberty restored.
I don't care what churches do or don't do. I only care that government involves itself to such a degree that we accept such incursions, favors, and corruption without a second thought. That must change. I note you did not address my question about how to prevent those incursions when you no longer agree with the direction they take. A government that powerful cannot be restrained.
I have never argued for no government. I have repeatedly said that government is engaging in activity in which it should not be. That does not mean no government. Read the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law..." Simple, definitive, absolute. "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble." No exceptions. Not even for illusory fairness.
We are not a democracy. Or perhaps you can tell me your vote on the omnibus spending bill of 2010? What did you vote on Roe v. Wade? How did you cast your vote on the Sequester?
Once again you justify your position of government incursion by appealing to other government incursions. Business licenses are completely unnecessary government obstacles to the free market, and they certainly do not grant government permission to make business a defacto government agency. Such an assertion is absurd.
If you think I have been arguing in favor of firing gays, you have not read what I have wrote, have not understood what I wrote, or are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. I clearly stated I was NOT in favor of "at will," that I was in favor of "for cause."
Two things has to happen when dialoging with others. One must understand the arguments being made, and then one must actually respond to them thoughtfully and analytically. I am no longer confident this is occurring.
No comments:
Post a Comment