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."
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.
That's communism.
"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!
EXACTLY!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.