Bill strengthens gays' rights: Lawmakers try again to ban discrimination based on sex orientation

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH ^ | Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | Jim Siegel

[Comparative Advantage]

Nothing in Ohio law stops companies from firing people because they are gay, just as there is nothing to stop landlords from refusing to rent to homosexuals.

Past legislative efforts to add protections for sexual orientation into state law have gone nowhere. That leaves people such as Jimmie Beall without a remedy from the state when they are fired for reasons they believe are directly related to their sexual orientation.

Beall was a teacher with the London City Schools in 2003. Her past reviews were excellent and she had been told by the administration that they planned to offer her a new three-year contract, she said.

But then, during a civil-rights lesson in her government class, Beall showed a presentation on the treatment of gays. Soon after, she said, the superintendent sent a message to the school board suggesting Beall was a lesbian, and her contract was not renewed.

"I was devastated," Beall said, noting that the move suddenly left her and her two children without insurance. "I called the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and was told that because there is no law to protect (gay) people against discrimination, there was nothing they could do."

Legislation introduced yesterday, pushed by Equality Ohio, a gay and transgender advocacy group, would prohibit Ohio businesses or government entities from discriminating based on sexual orientation, adding it to a list that includes race, color, religion, sex, disability or national origin. The definition of sexual orientation says it can be "actual or perceived."

Similar protections have passed in 21 states, the group said.

Two central Ohio lawmakers, Reps. Jon M. Peterson, R-Delaware, and Dan Stewart, D-Columbus, are jointly sponsoring the House bill.

[Comparative Advantage]

For central Ohioans, note Rep. Jon M. Peterson (R-Delaware) and Sen. David Goodman (R-New Albany).

[digger48]

If she’d have kept it out of the classroom, her being gay was and is a non-issue.

[Pontiac]

Nothing in Ohio law stops companies from firing people because they are gay, just as there is nothing to stop landlords from refusing to rent to homosexuals.

If they want to make this law apply exclusively to government I have no problem with this proposed law.

If however they want to make it apply to private citizens I do have a problem.

There used to be a thing called the Right of Free Association. People have a right to associate with those wish to and to not associate with those they do not.

That would include the right to choose with whom they wish to do business. (Within the boarders of the United States)

The government has no right to tell a private citizen that they must do business with any other individual.

Employee someone is a business contract. An employer contracts with an employee to provide a service for a fee (wages). If an employer decides for what ever reason to dissolve that contract, that is his right.

If an employer decides to sever a business contract with an employee simply because an employee is a homosexual and is otherwise a good employee it is stupid but still within his or her rights.

[nyconse]

Thank goodness she did not say she was a Christian. If that happened she may actually influence a child in a good way.

[gidget7]

No IT DARN WELL IS NOT OK!!! for govt employees.

You do realize that covers schools? Sorry but the presentation during a civil rights lesson is 100% inappropriate, and it is high time we, as Americans stood up and said so! These are impressionable children, they are intentionally damaging their minds and hearts. Anyone who cannot see that is part of the problem. Until they dissolve the NEA and govt. schools, this policy should NOT be law.

[Pontiac]

Until they dissolve the NEA and govt. schools, this policy should NOT be law.

Sorry but I believe it is already law as far as government funded schools is concerned.

Any organization accepting federal funding can not discriminate in hiring practices on the bases of sexual orientation.

All public schools that I am aware of accept federal funding.

[gidget7]

Not all of them. In MA for instance, they refused Fed. funding, so they didn't have to teach abstinence. So apparently it depends on the issue.

[Alouette]

Thank goodness she did not say she was a Christian.

Then she would get fired immediately and have NO recourse, and no sympathy from the media.

[Kahonek]

“Any organization accepting federal funding can not discriminate in hiring practices on the bases of sexual orientation.”

I believe this is incorrect. Can you cite anything to support it? I know several states have these policies, but I have never heard of a federal policy to this effect.