Skip to comments.Lawmakers seek protection for homosexual employees
Posted on 07/12/2005 4:32:51 PM PDT by scripter
A group of 11 representatives in the House want Congress to add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected characteristics used in regulating workplace discrimination in federal employment.
Government employment discrimination and whistleblower-protection issues are handed by the Office of Special Counsel, which is empowered to prosecute managers believed to have violated the law. During the Clinton administration, Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan an avowed lesbian, according to Concerned Women for America incorporated "sexual orientation" under the "conduct unrelated to the job" portion of the regulation, thus elevating homosexuality to a protected status.
Last year, Scott Bloch, who now heads the OSC, removed the words "sexual orientation" from a portion of the OSC's website dealing with protected categories since Congress had never authorized the addition.
In recent testimony before a Senate panel, Bloch explained why he believes the law is clear and that Congress' listing of categories necessarily limits his jurisdiction.
In response to Bloch's action and testimony, 11 members of Congress, including openly homosexual Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., introduced H.R. 3128, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protection Act. The chief sponsor is Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who represents West Hollywood, a homosexual enclave in Los Angeles County. Waxman is the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee.
Other co-sponsors include Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Christopher Shays, R-Conn., Danny Davis, D-N.Y., Eliot Engle, D-N.Y., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Steny Hoyer. D-Md., and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.
"Someone needs to tell these congressmen that creating a special civil-rights status for federal employees based on bedroom behavior is an insult to true minorities," said Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel. "Who are next, adulterers? And why should federal employees have greater civil-rights protection than ordinary, hard-working Americans?"
Bloch told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee in May: "We do not see sexual orientation as a term for class status anywhere in the statute or in the legislative history or case law, in fact, it is quite contrary to it."
The very existence of former homosexuals and what they have to say is very revealing. Checkout: People Can Change
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
What Scripter said needs to be repeated over and over again:
"Creating civil rights based on sexual behavior is not just an insult to true minorities, it opens to door to any sexual behavior."
Anyone who hasn't yet, please click his link. There are who knows how many thousands of former homosexuals. Their stories need to be heard.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Should you be able to fire somebody for private conduct unrelated to the job? I dont want to be fired for my political views or the car I drive or who I live with etc.
NO. Their salaries will be paid by us - the normal heterosexual tax payer.
I'm not supporting homosexuals who simply choose to engage in a demented sex fetish. I'll make my husband cut back on his work hours enough to fall into a no tax bracket. We're all set up to do that anyway in case of an emergency.
Do you think we should base civil rights on sexual behavior?
I don't think we should. Sexual behavior isn't something that people care to know about others.
Of course not (and I assume that was a rhetorical question) - equal civil rights for everybody no special rights for anybody... well I guess I can live with parking spaces for the handicapped but that's about it.
My point was was that I don't think employment should extend to control over private life.
Yeah, that is what is needed to be added if anything.
For heaven's sake, it is a mental illness that was taken off the abnormal psychology books due to political gay activism.
Look newbie, you should do some serious investigating when it comes to these "its". They're disgusting and diseased - by choice!
People shouldn't be forced by law to pay their wages. If they're government, they work for us. They're fired already!!
I will never, ever vote for a Republican that caters to dysfunctional sex fetishes. Never. No one I know would.
Depression is a mental illness. But I wouldn't fire someone because they are depressed in their personal life, only if it effected their ability to do their job.
I agree, I have no problem with the low percentage of gays who DON'T make their sexual appetites the focus of their discussions at work.
Ditto. What would be the point of a having Republican Party if they stood for such insanity? Wouldn't that make them Socialists?
Excuse me, but when was the last time you heard a queer keep his personal life private? They have frigging "I have queer butt sex " parades for crying out loud!
When was the last time you saw a "I have sex with my wife" parade?
Would you want queerdom shoved in your face (literally) every day at work? I sure as heck wouldn't want them around me 8 hours a day.
That's an interesting take - I have a real aversion to the government forcing you to hire ANYONE. If you don't like people who drive sports cars or you don't like people with red hair or even if you don't like a certain race or religion I'm not sure where the government gets the power to force you to hire them.
I was speaking about principle. And in principle I think employers should stick to job performance rather than trying to tell employees how to live. If a persons private life interferes with their work THEN, for me it's an issue. This has served me well in hiring and firing.
BTW, that's a very interesting Marx Quote. Reminds me of a Woodrow Wilson quote "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we come from or what we have been about."
If they keep their private life private then I'm not likely to know about it.
The rule at the company where I work is no discussion of sex religion or politics in the workplace. Sex talk is not just an issue about homosexuality but because it doesn't take much to create a (legally) hostile workplace these place if women are there.
Secondly, your argument seems to defeat itself. If you don't think you should be allowed to be fired for things you do in your social life, then you should be against this legislation. Because all it is an affirmative action clone, certain rights for some, and not for others.
Such legislaiton simply enlarges the group of "special people" who are above the standards set for the rest of us.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"-George Orwell, Animal Farm
Then help me understand - where is the affirmative action here? I'll change my vote if I can see that as I have never seen any good come from affirmative action.
Wow, sounds great! Just in case a few people might get offended, let's give up our First Amendment rights.
If you don't stand up and fight, you won't be able to speak about anything.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
I thought I already went over that.
What do Affirmative Action, Hate Crime Legislation, and Discrimination Categories have in commmon?
They apply special rights to certain groups, while excluding the rest of us.
Just to be clear though isn't everybody in this thread arguing that the employer has the right to fire me for what I say outside of work? Then certainly he (actually she in this case) has the right to fire me for what what I say at work?
All I'm arguing is that there ought to be a dividing line. Her rights stop when I leave work.
I want a law to protect pot smokers.
If you grow it yourself and it doesn't cross state lines I don't see where the federal government gets the right to regulate it. I cant find that power anywhere in the constitution.
But if you drive impaired that should be illegal and if you come to work impaired I think the employer should be able to fire you. Just my opinion.
Well, unfortunatley they don't. If you engage in neo-Nazi activities after work, you can be fired for that. Whether that's right or not is irrevalent.
You sound to me like a libertatrian on this issue: ANYTHING you do outside of work should not be a basis for discrimination so long as it doesn't affect your job.
If you want to fight that, fine. Please do, but you don't do it one minority group at a time because that will give everyone else that right except YOU!
I do have some libertarian leanings.
I could not be a libertarian, though, because the ensuing chaos of a libertarian system would cause the loss the very liberties the libertarians seek.
You're right. Today give special rights to people based solely on who they choose to share their genitals with. Next, instead of "who", it will be "WHAT"...
Why, that's down right American! Blackbird.
I agree. No one should drive impaired or work under the influence. But you are right about the state lines. I just don't think what people do on their own time is any business of an employer unless it directly impacts their work.