My friend lost his job. Because he was teh gay.

[Platypus]

Apparently if quickly became known because of the employee who figured it out told one other employee, etc.
And for many people at the company it was a problem.
And, it was just a matter of time before someone mentioned it to a client. Many of whom were friends with people who worked at the company. After all it was a "scandal" and it featured the hated and feared "gays".
And yes, many, many, many "Christians" don't display kindness and understanding when it comes to gays.

Once your friend figures out what he's going to do, you should post the company name.

 

[jonks]

I support gay rights, but honestly, this story is probably a bunch of nonsense. First of all, the change in protection in Virginia is only for Virginia state employees. Second, if you've been following the news at all, it's been made perfectly clear that the change does not mean being gay is a 'fireable offense.' State agencies have reaffirmed their own discretion to have anti-discrimination policies that protect LGBT. The governor's statement did not roll back local anti-discrimination policies or federal law.

An employee fired for 'being gay' would have pretty much the same rights for pursuing grievances in Virginia as in any state. The governor reaffirmed two weeks ago, "Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." And the story gets a bit more incredulous because the 'friend' gets fired for not admitting that he's gay. Virginia or not, that's a major violation of current labor laws and he could sue from here to tomorrow.

This whole missive seems like something pulled right of Snopes to bring attention to the VA governor's decision to omit LGBT from his anti-discrimination statement. The governor was a jackass for doing that, but it didn't have any real effect on Virgina labor laws and it certainly didn't make it legal to fire someone for being gay.

I have my own doubts as to Tech's story, but we can discuss as if this were hypothetical. True story or not, I disagree with almost all of your post.

1. You state that the recent change enacted by the VA governor "only" affected employees of the state, i.e. not private employees. That is true, but not in a good way. Currently there is no protection for employees of private companies in Virginia:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/states-regions/virginia.html

That is, there is no state law in VA preventing private employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation. In effect, you can most certainly be fired simply for being gay in VA, in both the state and private employment. Some private employers may have anti-discrimination policies in place which could be a basis for a law suit if they violated such policy, but such policies are put in place only voluntarily.

Since the only protection for state workers in VA from sexual orientation discrimination came from the previous two governors' executive orders banning such discrimination, I'm not sure how you can say the current governor's executive order which specifically removed sexual orientation as a factor did not "roll back" state protections for gay state employees. As to him rolling back federal law, there is really nothing for him to roll back, see point 3.

2. You say that an employee fired for 'being gay' would have pretty much the same rights for pursuing grievances in Virginia as in any state. This is patently false. About 20 states and a large number of cities and counties have passed statutes specifically prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act#State_law

If a person is fired in NY and told it is because they are gay, they can sue under state law which specifically and unequivocally bars employers from that behavior. An employee in VA has no such state statutory protection.

3. There is no federal law protecting employees of private companies from being discriminated against on sexual orientation grounds. Some federal employees have limited protection due to various executive orders, but the EEOC does not investigate sexual orientation discrimination cases, and remedies are limited:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30213.html

We are also discussing here the most blatant extreme case possible, where a person is FIRED explicitly because they are gay. Most discrimination is far less visible and far more insidious. To avoid having to fire someone because of sexual orientation, an employer could simply refuse to give raises or promotions. Rather than go through the long and arduous process of suing, most people would simply quit.

Now, it is the rare employer who would fire someone because they are gay, and the even more rare employer who would admit that that was the reason. This is not to say that a person so fired would have absolutely no recourse. There are a multitude of alternative grounds from "intentional infliction of emotional distress" to "hostile work environment" etc, that can be brought, but making such a case would be far more difficult, and frankly, making someone jump through those hoops is unnecessary.

Hopefully all this will be put to rest if Congress can pass ENDA, which democrats have been trying to do since '94. All this essentially does is add "sexual orientation" to the workplace protections currently afforded race, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act Republican presidents and senators have stood in the way until now. Maybe the dems will now have the balls to push this through too.

If you want a nice whackadoo counterpoint to why ENDA should not be passed, ask the nuts over at Concerned Women for America:
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2579&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

They'll tell you that ENDA would "prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation," thus opening businesses ... to harassment by homosexual activist lawyers.", "make people's sexual temptations a source of material for federal lawsuits", and "require the federal government to declare that all sexual preferences are equally valid and supportable." Heavens no!

 

[moshquerade]

Once your friend figures out what he's going to do, you should post the company name.

This.

 

[zinfamous]

the comment was in jest, but i've heard it a few times. probably had nothing to do with the numbers, but more of history.

book about richmond gblf

"From the first recorded sodomy prosecution in America in 1624 to the fight to repeal the “crimes against nature” laws, LGBTs have left their imprint on almost 400 years of history in the Old Dominion’s capital."



How about a funny answer. gay people improves the odd that i can get laid, while lesbians reduces it.

or maybe a semi-serious answer, most lesbians at VCU disliked guys, so as a preemptive strike, I also dislike them. Now the faux-bi freshman girls are more of an exception as they're more promiscuous and are usually more attractive, case in point, I even have a poster of Rosmy (Richmond Org of Sexual Minority Youths), back in college about 18 years ago. I think they still exist. And when I say youths, they recruit 14-20 year olds.

hmmm I should see if this one girl I knew is on the facebook. D:😀

Cape Cod is the gay capital of the east coast...and I thought everyone knew this? It's practically on the front of their annual tourist guide.

It even rivals SF as the gayest place in the country.

 

[zinfamous]

#3 might not be as hard as you think.. with the right press behind this, one of the many gay-friendly companies out there would eat that shit up due to the free PR. There are tons of companies he could get a job if he decides to go that route.

The problem really is that there's no real way to prove any of this and I highly doubt the official response from this company will be that they fired him because he refused to answer a question about his sexuality.

Oh, now I know you didn't just say that. 😱

 

[zinfamous]

The owner of the company did not do this "maliciously". In fact, it was because the owner was active in the Christian community and had gained a lot of clients thru his "Christian" activities that he faced loss of customers if he kept a gay employee. As per my friend, he doesn't think he would have been fired if it wouldn't have cost the company money to keep him.

Kinda raises an interesting question.
Can a company choose not to do business with another company solely because that company has a gay employee?

this is crazy. We all know that the Christian homophobe types are all closeted homos. Like, 92% of the time. This guy could only help their business.

 

[xCxStylex]

The south fails. They don't deserve to their their part of the country capitalized either.

Sorry about your friend, that's terrible. Fucking southern hicks, fuck the south and their inbreeding, backwards asses.

There are no federal laws protecting sexual orientation. The classes protected are race, gender, religion, national origin and color. A lot of state do have such laws but most in the South do not.

Edit: oops, forgot disability.

 

[xCxStylex]

this is crazy. We all know that the Christian homophobe types are all closeted homos. Like, 92% of the time. This guy could only help their business.

^ Truth. Look at that fucker *Senator* Roy Ashburn from Fresno, CA.

The guy was your typical, closeted, white Republican Christian homophobe, voting agaist any pro-gay legislation until he was caught red handed. LULZ OWNED

 

[zinfamous]

The south fails. They don't deserve to their their part of the country capitalized either.

Sorry about your friend, that's terrible. Fucking southern hicks, fuck the south and their inbreeding, backwards asses.

I'm from the South.

What you don't know about large swaths of...everything? could probably fill this planet.

 

[AlienCraft]

Capitalism hits a new high.
This sort of corporate intrusion into personal lives is not part of The Invisible Hand Mr. Smith wrote of. Yet Corporatists feel it is their inalienable right.
< corporate wage slave in an At-Will state.

 

[Craig234]

I only read pages 1 and 8, but since it isn't mentioned there:

Virginia has a new governor, and very recently, he and the attorney general are being right-wing bigots against gays.

The governor earlier this year repealed the executive order granting protection from discrimination against groups including gays. He then issued a new order that was the same except it removed the protection for gays. This got a lot of publicity, much bad, so he issued an Executive Directive saying the state is against discrimination INCLUDING against gays.

Only problem with that is that an executive *directive* might sound like an executive order, but it's only a suggestion, not a rule, like the order.

So he didn't give them back any protection - he misled the public to make it look like he had while still allowing discrimination against gays.

What a scumbag he and his AG who is right with him on it are.

 

[JD50]

The south fails. They don't deserve to their their part of the country capitalized either.

Sorry about your friend, that's terrible. Fucking southern hicks, fuck the south and their inbreeding, backwards asses.

The irony in this post is incredible.

 

[ebaycj]

Lester Burnham: Then I guess I'll have to throw in a sexual harassment charge.
Brad Dupree: Against who?
Lester Burnham: Against YOU. Can you prove that you didn't offer to save my job if I let you blow me?
Brad Dupree: Man, you are one twisted fuck.
Lester Burnham: Nope; I'm just an ordinary guy who has nothing left to lose.

..

 

[ebaycj]

There's a reason "Virginia" looks like "Vagina".

Anyhow, rule #1 was broken. Rule #1 being Don't Sign Anything. Given that your friend voluntarily resigned, it doesn't really matter at this point. He's screwed (pun intended).

He actually likely wouldn't be screwed.

He did not "voluntarily" resign, he was given that as the only alternative to being fired. That's "involuntary".

Most states treat this type of "voluntary resignation" as no different than being fired. He should sue. At the very least he should apply for unemployment.