• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

VA state employees can be discriminated against

zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
... if they're gay, apparently.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2011/02/house_panel_kills_bill_to_add.html

A House of Delegates subcommittee has killed a proposal to write legal protections for gay state employees into Virginia law.

The same GOP-led panel killed similar legislation last year. Democrats had pushed the bill hard this year, in part in response to a letter that Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli (R) delivered to colleges and universities last year instructing them that, in the absence of a decision by the General Assembly to write protections for gays into law, they could not include language dealing with sexual orientation in their campus non-discrimination policies.

After Cuccinelli's letter sparked a firestorm, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) issued a executive directive outlining that the state does not discriminate, including on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that employees who violate the policy can be disciplined.

Opponents of the bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Don McEachin (D-Richmond), argue that there is little evidence gay state workers face discrimination and that the governor's executive directive provides sufficient protections. Proponents note that without a change in law, employees cannot sue if they have faced discrimination.

"I can't pretend it's a surprise," McEachin said of the vote. "It's still a disappointment."

The same subcommittee also killed a bill that would have allowed public colleges and universities to offer employees the ability to extend their health coverage to their unmarried partners, including gay partners.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I'm not sure if the governor's executive directive is enough. I don't believe there's a lot of actual discrimination going on, but if it happens it's definitely not clear if such discrimination can be legally challenged. Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge can answer that question?
 
There is a similar fight going on in Nashville. Opponents say that current laws are sufficient to handle discrimination cases based on sexual orientation. The bill in Nashville also includes language that covers gender identity. Making it much easier to come up with a basis for a lawsuit. Many business fear that expense.

A lesbian soccer coach at a local private university in nashville was fired when she revealed she and her partner were having a baby. She has not gotten her job back yet. This was a Christian university and it is obvious to everyone that she was fired for being a lesbian.. this just happened in December so it will take a while to see if those protections without the additional bill are really there.
 
rudder said:
There is a similar fight going on in Nashville. Opponents say that current laws are sufficient to handle discrimination cases based on sexual orientation. The bill in Nashville also includes language that covers gender identity. Making it much easier to come up with a basis for a lawsuit. Many business fear that expense.

A lesbian soccer coach at a local private university in nashville was fired when she revealed she and her partner were having a baby. She has not gotten her job back yet. This was a Christian university and it is obvious to everyone that she was fired for being a lesbian.. this just happened in December so it will take a while to see if those protections without the additional bill are really there.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with a private university (re: receives no public money) being discriminatory, but no public institution should have that ability.
 
Gay is not a protected class. Perfectly legal. That's why there is no need for such legislation. You can be discriminated against for any number of reasons, gays should not be a protected class.
 
spidey07 said:
Once you start protecting a behavior you open up all kinds of crap like fat being a protected class, alcoholism being a protected class, smokers being a protected class, pedophiles being a protected class, etc.
Click to expand...

It's not protecting a behavior, though. Sexual orientation is a trait just like gender or race.
 
zsdersw said:
It's not protecting a behavior, though. Sexual orientation is a trait just like gender or race.
Click to expand...

So is alcoholism and fatty. See how dangerous your line of thinking is for it to be protected? Very dangerous line of reasoning that we need to strictly avoid. Don't act like a flamer in the workforce and there won't be any trouble.
 
zsdersw said:
It's not protecting a behavior, though. Sexual orientation is a trait just like gender or race.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

No form of government, be it local, federal, or anything between, should be able to discriminate based on race, gender, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. I would add wealth and income to that list as well, but I am aware others would not agree.
 
spidey07 said:
So is alcoholism and fatty. See how dangerous your line of thinking is for it to be protected? Very dangerous line of reasoning that we need to strictly avoid. Don't act like a flamer in the workforce and there won't be any trouble.
Click to expand...

It's not dangerous at all. Alcoholism and being obese can impact someone's actual ability to do work. Being a flamer doesn't.
 
Last edited:
rudder said:
There is a similar fight going on in Nashville. Opponents say that current laws are sufficient to handle discrimination cases based on sexual orientation. The bill in Nashville also includes language that covers gender identity. Making it much easier to come up with a basis for a lawsuit. Many business fear that expense.

A lesbian soccer coach at a local private university in nashville was fired when she revealed she and her partner were having a baby. She has not gotten her job back yet. This was a Christian university and it is obvious to everyone that she was fired for being a lesbian.. this just happened in December so it will take a while to see if those protections without the additional bill are really there.
Click to expand...

This is totally different. This is a private school and directly contradicts what the college stands for. I couldn't work at HP and use a Dell laptop.
 
there shouldnt be protected classes.

the whole idea is stupid. its 'less' ok to try and discriminate these 'special people'


and i agree zsdersw about the private christian school vs those getting taxdollars

I just dont see how there needs to be special protected classes, verses decently written anti discrimination laws
 
Zargon said:
there shouldnt be protected classes.

the whole idea is stupid. its 'less' ok to try and discriminate these 'special people'


and i agree zsdersw about the private christian school vs those getting taxdollars

I just dont see how there needs to be special protected classes, verses decently written anti discrimination laws
Click to expand...

Indeed.. I don't see the need for protected classes, either.
 
classy said:
This is totally different. This is a private school and directly contradicts what the college stands for. I couldn't work at HP and use a Dell laptop.
Click to expand...

I should have specified the charter being considered in Nashville would expand to include any city vendors or to any private businesses contracting with the city. Belmont university, the one in question, contracts with the city of Nashville for the use of some property. This charter would apply to them in that case (or they lose use of the property) if it passed.

The main issue here in Nashville is the government wants to have it's policy cover private businesses.
 
rudder said:
I should have specified the charter being considered in Nashville would expand to include any city vendors or to any private businesses contracting with the city. Belmont university, the one in question, contracts with the city of Nashville for the use of some property. This charter would apply to them in that case (or they lose use of the property) if it passed.

The main issue here in Nashville is the government wants to have it's policy cover private businesses.
Click to expand...

Well if thats the case, they shouldn't pass it. You can't force people to accept your personal lifestyle at work. While a person should never be fired for it, it should not be allowed to be flaunted either. Or force a compnay to hire a person or retain a person you contradicts the core values. I agreed with the decision to fire the teacher who got fired from a christian school who was pregnant and not married. When you want to work for a religous organization you must be willing to have your private life conform to those values.
 
zsdersw said:
It's not protecting a behavior, though. Sexual orientation is a trait just like gender or race.
Click to expand...

You may think that and I may even agree with you, but according to the law you arent gay cuz your synapses are wired different. The law declares you gay because of the activities you engage in.
And under the law activities do not put you in a class, which means no special privileges or protections, and you can be discriminated legally.

I dont care much for discriminating against gays or smokers or breast feeding moms, but right now thats the way it is.

On a side note, as a general rule I find Virginians to be some of the most pleasant people in the country (when not driving) but they are seriously anti-gay and that extends to local and state government. This includes blacks and mexicans too, its not just hateful protestant whites.

This will be one of the last states in the Union to protect gays. It may not even happen during my life.
 
zsdersw said:
Indeed.. I don't see the need for protected classes, either.
Click to expand...

Really? Eliminating the idea of protected classes once again means that it would be okay to have white people only restaurants. I don't think we want to live in a country where that's ok.

Protected classes aren't 'special people', they apply to everyone. Black places can't have 'black people only' restaurants, and a gay business can't hire only gay people. The majority of discrimination goes one way to be sure, but the laws are not created just for gay or black people.
 
shortylickens said:
You may think that and I may even agree with you, but according to the law you arent gay cuz your synapses are wired different. The law declares you gay because of the activities you engage in.
And under the law activities do not put you in a class, which means no special privileges or protections, and you can be discriminated legally.
Click to expand...

The law doesn't declare me gay, I declare it. I don't declare to the government that I have homosexual sex or that I have sex at all... I only declare my sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
Really? Eliminating the idea of protected classes once again means that it would be okay to have white people only restaurants. I don't think we want to live in a country where that's ok.

Protected classes aren't 'special people', they apply to everyone. Black places can't have 'black people only' restaurants, and a gay business can't hire only gay people. The majority of discrimination goes one way to be sure, but the laws are not created just for gay or black people.
Click to expand...

actually you are kind of wrong. and the protected classes and affirmative action indeed at times CAN go just one way and screw anyone not 'protected'.

There used to be blacks only colleges, long after any college tried to be whites only. and I have no problem with that. IF thats how you want to try and run your business great, but I wouldnt go to those places out of principle of it being just plain ignorant or stupid(at the level of restaraunts ETC)

it also doesnt mean that it would now be OK to have whites only restaraunts since we have other laws saying you can't discrimate based on race gender or ethnicity(or even sexual preference)
 
eskimospy said:
Really? Eliminating the idea of protected classes once again means that it would be okay to have white people only restaurants. I don't think we want to live in a country where that's ok.

Protected classes aren't 'special people', they apply to everyone. Black places can't have 'black people only' restaurants, and a gay business can't hire only gay people. The majority of discrimination goes one way to be sure, but the laws are not created just for gay or black people.
Click to expand...

If, as was mentioned earlier, anti-discrimination laws were written better the concept of protected classes wouldn't be required.
 
Zargon said:
actually you are kind of wrong. and the protected classes and affirmative action indeed at times CAN go just one way and screw anyone not 'protected'.

There used to be blacks only colleges, long after any college tried to be whites only. and I have no problem with that. IF thats how you want to try and run your business great, but I wouldnt go to those places out of principle of it being just plain ignorant or stupid(at the level of restaraunts ETC)

it also doesnt mean that it would now be OK to have whites only restaraunts since we have other laws saying you can't discrimate based on race gender or ethnicity(or even sexual preference)
Click to expand...

What other laws are these, how would they eliminate the need for protected classes, and how is such a prohibition not establishing a protected class? Also, affirmative action is a very different thing than a protected class.
 
eskimospy said:
What other laws are these, how would they eliminate the need for protected classes, and how is such a prohibition not establishing a protected class? Also, affirmative action is a very different thing than a protected class.
Click to expand...

so you arent familiar with the civil rights acts but here you are talking up random laws?


:awe:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_VII#Title_VII


http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_a...mployment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21

bans discrimination based on race, skin color, ethnicity, without calling them protected classes. the name is just wrong

protected class

if someone is protected, then its not equal treatment. and equal treatment is the law of the land, not special treatment if you are the minority
 
zsdersw said:
I have no problem with a private university (re: receives no public money) being discriminatory, but no public institution should have that ability.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that, except that being gay should have some direct conflict with your employer. Being gay in a Christian college could been considered a direct conflict; being gay in, say, a grocery store or an auto parts manufacturer, not so much. I'm a big proponent of being able to hire and fire anyone you wish at will, but having twice heard owners say "You didn't hire that ni**er did you?" I can see a valid need to have reasons for which you CAN'T fire someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top