House Passes Ban On Job Bias Against Gays

Bill Protects Gay, Lesbian And Bisexual Workers From Discrimination, But Not Transgendered

(AP)  The House on Wednesday approved the first federal ban on job discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came despite protests from some gay rights supporters that the bill does not protect transgender workers. That term covers transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance does not match their gender at birth.

The measure would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. It would exempt churches and the military.

After the 235-184 vote, supporters are expecting a tough fight in the narrowly divided Senate, where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy plans to introduce a similar version.

A veto from President Bush is expected if the proposal does pass the Senate. The White House has cited constitutional concerns and said the proposal could trample religious rights.

Backers of the House bill proclaimed it a major civil rights advance for gays. “Bigotry and homophobia are sentiments that should never be allowed to permeate the American workplace,” said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C.

The decision by Democratic leaders to exclude protections based on gender identity created sharp divisions in the party and among gay rights activists.

Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill could undermine the rights of people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons and lead to an onslaught of dubious discrimination lawsuits.

“This is, frankly, a trial lawyer's dream,” said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.

Protections for transgender workers were in the original bill. But Democratic leaders found they would lose support from moderate and conservative Democrats by including transgender employees in the final bill.

“That's a bridge too far,” said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. “It's better to take it one step at a time.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, however, said excluding transgender workers was shortsighted.

“As we have seen in many states, the failure to include the transgender community in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more difficult to extend protections later,” said Nadler, D-N.Y.

Rep. Barney Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress and an important supporter of the bill, urged colleagues not to let the dispute over transgender workers doom an important gain in civil rights.

Frank, D-Mass., said he hoped the bill would send a message to “millions of Americans who are gay and lesbian that they are not bad people, that it is not legitimate to fire them simply because of who they are.”

He also pledged to continue to fight for a bill to protect transgender workers.

Job discrimination based on factors such as race, gender and religion are banned under federal law. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against sexual-orientation discrimination.

Only nine states specifically protect transgender people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington. The District of Columbia has a similar law.

By January, laws also will be in effect in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon.

Information on the bill, H.R. 3685, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov.

[jankebenz]

Just to keep focus on the subject and inference

qay (g)
adj. gay7er, gay7est
1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same ***.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.
n.
1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same ***.
2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of *** and lesbians.


Tragic how homosexuals have darkened the original word for cheerful and merry, to the current definition

[jankebenz]

Fortunately, most Americans disagree with you, more and more each day. Bigotry is rarely able to withstand the light of day once the true facts come out. Posted by Candide777 at 09:22 PM : Nov 10, 2007

10 years ago most americans opposed homosexuality, now ,according to polls, its about a 50/50 split. By persistant and intensive lobbying, the gayrights activists have changed the status quo. Likewise, prolonged exposure to televisions portrayal of violence, murder,seks,alternate lifestyles, have rendered the majority immune to the effects thereof. Small wonder kids walk into schools and kill,or that the public is more receptive of homophiles,exposure influences the masses. The single most influential factor to the rising tide of seks crime,pedophilia,homosexuality is pornography, which the media is guilty of market flooding. Child porn viewers use the same excuse,my rights, my choice, even going so far as to label it as an extension of artistic expression ,how sick,how depraved. Being intolerant of murderers, rapists,child abusers, pedophiles,ect, I must therfore be, as you say, a bigot.so be it then

[candide777]

else.Since apparently you won''''t give credence to science,stats or the bible,who will you believe? Will you go merrily along your way till one day reality catches up with you? I certainly do not "hate" anyone as you so easily label, but would I show love and concern for my biblical neighbor if I did not give warning of impending dangers? As holds true for all, you, and only you, will have to ultimately choose and decide for yourself what is true, and what is not. Seek and you will find, the status quo could be wrong
Posted by jankebenz at 08:58 PM : Nov 10, 2007

Ummm, the majority of gay people are quite happy being themselves. Otherwise, you wouldn''t feel the need to persecute them the way you do. The only reason you support discrimination against gay people and denying them equal rights is due to your shameless bigotry. Fortunately, most Americans disagree with you, more and more each day. Bigotry is rarely able to withstand the light of day once the true facts come out. That''s why our U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the dignity of gay and lesbian americans and their right to petition the government, despite efforts by the extremist Christian fundamentalists in this country who have gone to great lengths in an effort to shut *** and lesbians out of the political process. History will not look kindly on these bigots anymore than it does on those who supported slavery and segregation in this country.

[jankebenz]

The truth is, we don''''t even know the real facts because hate-mongerers like you

Posted by Candide777 at 04:25 PM : Nov 10, 2007

If its cold hard undeniable, irrefutable facts you want my dear, then again as I said before, visit an aids ward sometime, and talk to the dying about their choices. See for yourself the fear, the anguish, the anxiety, the state of hopelessness.See for yourself if any of the patients who contracted aids thru homosexuality are not remorseful for their past activities.But the hard truth is all too often learned too late, just as drug users, alcholics, smokers,ect. all too often refuse reason and warning,till its too late! Sadly, lifes hardest lessons are gained thru tragedy, not that I wish any harm to you or anyone else.Since apparently you won''t give credence to science,stats or the bible,who will you believe? Will you go merrily along your way till one day reality catches up with you? I certainly do not "hate" anyone as you so easily label, but would I show love and concern for my biblical neighbor if I did not give warning of impending dangers? As holds true for all, you, and only you, will have to ultimately choose and decide for yourself what is true, and what is not. Seek and you will find, the status quo could be wrong
regards

[klingon69]

Neither is being gay a fireable reason, thanks for helping establish that.
Posted by Candide777 at 04:26 PM : Nov 10, 2007

I never said it was. That has not been my argument. I asked you for proof, you cited some vague thing about the American Psychology Association. I asked a hypothetical, which you answered maturely and intelligently(thanks). However, I have not said anything about being gay as a firing offense.

[klingon69]

The reason most turn to a scientific careet is to offset some stimulus recieved previously(ie: lost mother to cancer, became cancer researcher).
Posted by Klingon69 at 04:16 PM : Nov 10, 2007

Oh, you''''re right, I forgot science is all voodoo and stuff like that. We are better off to listen to what our preacher has to say. He knows the real truth!
Posted by Candide777 at 04:19 PM : Nov 10, 2007

You can listen to him if you want. I personally don''t think anybody on Earth has the answer. How in the heck did you get voodoo from my post? I said (paraphrasing now) that most scientist do not develop a field of study, or any experiments unless they have a personal reason. Most who enter a scientific field (including medicine)do in response to external stimulus that has affected them. IE: Lost someone special to a disease, so develops self into a scientist working on cure for that disease.

[candide777]

Actually, religion is not a fireable reason.
Posted by Klingon69 at 04:23 PM : Nov 10, 2007

Neither is being gay a fireable reason, thanks for helping establish that.

[candide777]

we''''ll have to resort to statisical facts.These stats show that the highest incidence of aids/hiv is found . . . .Posted by jankebenz at 04:01 PM : Nov 10, 2007

Please don''t make me laugh. You wouldn''t know a fact if it hit you square in the face. At least you stopped quoting the Bible to me, thank you for that. The truth is, we don''t even know the real facts because hate-mongerers like you have made it unsafe for so many gay people to be counted. As for your "facts," you just make most of them up or pull them off of anti-gay websites run by fiercly right-wing religious groups. They don''t have a monopoly on truth -- you should get out more and learn about the real world.

[klingon69]

I have a hypothetical for you Klingon69 -- suppose I have a Christian staff member who sometimes talks about his church at work and says a prayer to himself at his desk before eating lunch, and I''''ve noticed that his religion is causing tension among staff members who have complained about his moment of silence before lunch because they feel he''''s rubbing his religion in their face. Should I be permitted to fire him for being a Christian?
Posted by Candide777 at 02:26 PM : Nov 10, 2007
Well, if his talking about his/her church/religion at work is part of it, I would counsel him/her about the disruption it is causing with his/her coworkers. I would also speak with the members of his/her work group to discuss why it bothers them. Actually, religion is not a fireable reason.
Oh, ok, I would fire the biggest redneck leader of the group...is that what you wanted me to write?

[klingon69]

I have a hypothetical for you Klingon69 -- suppose I have a Christian staff member who sometimes talks about his church at work and says a prayer to himself at his desk before eating lunch, and I''''ve noticed that his religion is causing tension among staff members who have complained about his moment of silence before lunch because they feel he''''s rubbing his religion in their face. Should I be permitted to fire him for being a Christian?
Posted by Candide777 at 02:26 PM : Nov 10, 2007
Well, if his talking about his/her church/religion at work is part of it, I would counsel him/her about the disruption it is causing with his/her coworkers. I would also speak with the members of his/her work group to discuss why it bothers them. Actually, religion is not a fireable reason.
Oh, ok, I would fire the biggest redneck leader of the group...is that what you wanted me to write?

[candide777]

The reason most turn to a scientific careet is to offset some stimulus recieved previously(ie: lost mother to cancer, became cancer researcher).
Posted by Klingon69 at 04:16 PM : Nov 10, 2007

Oh, you''re right, I forgot science is all voodoo and stuff like that. We are better off to listen to what our preacher has to say. He knows the real truth!

[candide777]

Could it be that many have been decieved by the progay propaganda-agenda, and media?
Posted by jankebenz at 04:01 PM : Nov 10, 2007

You''re paranoid. Why do you think people are behind the progay agenda? It''s because there is simply no legitimate reason to discriminate against *** and to criminalize them. They work hard at their jobs, they pay taxes, they do volunteer community work and they are well-loved and respected by people who actually know them, as distinct from those who base their judgment solely on the behaviour of a small minority of gay people. (The majority of gay people live lives no different than their straight counterparts). How would you like to be judged by the bad behaviour of a few straight people? When it comes to "deviant" sexual behaviour, heterosexuals are not immune by any means, and if you think they are, you''re smoking something funny.

[klingon69]

As for me, I like to consider what motivates and organization when deciding whether to believe their "research." If truth motivates them, then I can buy it. But if they simply want to prove that their view of morality is 100% true, then I tend to be skeptical about their "research."
Posted by Candide777 at 02:15 PM : Nov 10, 2007
I doubt you''ve seen any other anti-gay rhetoric from me, so you can stop that line of krapp now. As long as it isn''t forced on me, I don''t care. I don''t have to wake up to that person so what does it matter to me who anyone is with. Personally I couldn''t be gay, or even bi, but I am not against ***. I have cousins, a sister and niece that are gay. I also used to hangout with two brothers that were gay(not sure if incestous or just gay). Funny guys, and parents had a sense of humor also, named them Ronald and Donald McDonald.
I guess you can believe whatever research you want, as long as it fits into your belief systems. The fact is that NO scientist delves into any experimentation/study, unless they have some personal reason. The reason most turn to a scientific careet is to offset some stimulus recieved previously(ie: lost mother to cancer, became cancer researcher).

[jankebenz]

Since scientific studies are at odds on the subject at hand ,due to bias, we''ll have to resort to statisical facts.These stats show that the highest incidence of aids/hiv is found in the qay community by far.They also show a higher than normal ratio of std,s , shortened lifespans,anti social behavior,seks related crimes, ect ect. If the stats prove that homosexuality is of deviant nature and detrimental to society as a whole,then why are we so tolerant and protective of this group? Could it be that many have been decieved by the progay propaganda-agenda, and media?

[candide777]

Bias: Few if any scientists motivated to study human sexuality enter the field without strong biases. It is extremely difficult for a researcher to remain totally objective and impartial on a matter as intimately personal as sexual orientation.
Posted by jankebenz at 03:03 PM : Nov 10, 2007

hmmm, guess your stuck with the ridiculous notion that the millions of *** and lesbians in this country who claim they have had that sexual orientation as long as they can remember, are all lying. Furthermore, all a straight person needs to do is ask him or herself: Could I change the gender that I''m generally attracted to from male to female or vice versa? I doubt it.

[jankebenz]

you did''nt read as I thought you would''nt

----------------------------------------------------
ENCINO, Calif.--Nearly 25 years after the AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION officially removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic Manual, labeling it a LIFESTYLE CHOICE rather than a psychological disorder''"

unfortunatly, nowadays its difficult to find a research study on the matter without bias as noted

Bias: Few if any scientists motivated to study human sexuality enter the field without strong biases. It is extremely difficult for a researcher to remain totally objective and impartial on a matter as intimately personal as sexual orientation.

[candide777]

Posted by Klingon69 at 01:56 PM : Nov 10, 2007

I have a hypothetical for you Klingon69 -- suppose I have a Christian staff member who sometimes talks about his church at work and says a prayer to himself at his desk before eating lunch, and I''ve noticed that his religion is causing tension among staff members who have complained about his moment of silence before lunch because they feel he''s rubbing his religion in their face. Should I be permitted to fire him for being a Christian?

[candide777]

And they are not comprised of *** and gay supporters either, are they???
Posted by Klingon69 at 02:02 PM : Nov 10, 2007

Klingon69, it''s quite clear that when you stated you were not anti-gay, you weren''t really being honest, but wanted to gain credibility by denying you were anti-gay. I''ve seen your anti-gay rhetoric on other articles. In any event, if you want to know the truth about ***, you''re an adult. You can figure it out by reasearching unbiased sources online. If you want to believe what an organization whose sole purpose is promoting an anti-gay agenda and who has close ties with conservative religious organizations, that''s your right. As for me, I like to consider what motivates and organization when deciding whether to believe their "research." If truth motivates them, then I can buy it. But if they simply want to prove that their view of morality is 100% true, then I tend to be skeptical about their "research."

[candide777]

HOW EXACTLY ARE GAY TAXPAYERS BURDENED WITH THE COST OF HETERO MARRIAGES?
Posted by Klingon69 at 02:00 PM : Nov 10, 2007

You are slightly changing what I said, but that''s understandable -- I did not mean to imply that it is necessarily their tax dollars that are paying for heterosexual marriage, but they definitely bear the burden, for example, when their employers offer benefits for married employees but denies those same benefits to gay couples who cannot marry. It''s unfair, plain and simple. If John (who is gay) does the same job as Frank (who is straight), why should Frank get to put his wife of one year on the company''s health insurance, but John cannot put his partner of twenty years on?

[candide777]

You misunderstood my supposition. I said tensions arose becasue of this, maybe I left out, the entire workforce had tensions with the gay person, should I let the workforce go for one individual, or just him/her?

I may have misunderstood because in my experience, the hypothetical where the entire staff is bothered by the presence of a gay person is pretty unrealistic. If that is the case, I''d get some consultants in to educate the staff on what kind of behaviour is appropriate in the workplace. If the entire staff is incapable of putting its prejudices aside, I''d say you have a pretty weak staff, and you should definitely get rid of the worst offenders (it''s true what they say about bad apples; you will likely find that the tension disappears after you fire the instigator). With staff like that, today it''s the gay thing, but it''s always something. If you ask me, they just don''t want to work and are looking for an excuse not to be productive. You definitely want to get rid of the bad apples because I''ve seen what they can do to an entire staff.