Fired for Working While Gay

A case of discrimination in Tennessee, where a gay employee was fired because he was gay, despite what was written in the company’s employee manual, but the real story may be the stupidity of this conservative bigot, who has run the company into the ground since he bought it and is now firing productive employees.

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2009/01/10/fired-for-working-while-gay/

you can still be fired for someones bigotry.

right out of high school I was asked if I was a member of the Mormon Church. When I told him I was not, he showed me the door. That was back in the 60's. Things have not changed much.

i was fired from a job because i was gay -- but it was a bartenders job -- and all the straight customers pitched such a hissy fit they hired me back.

many years ago now.

Salt Lake proper is more diverse now, but you get out into the burbs and the homophobia is rampant. These poor souls have so much to worry about, what with these questions: are you a member of the "Church", are you Republican, are you gay? Their famous saying is "love it or leave it". My son was discriminated against by his peers during grade school because he was not Mormon. Terrible family values, if you ask me.

Some wanted marriage equality. And didn't care about equality that matters.

go give o'reilly a nice long hot hug.
you'll feel better.

We don't just want Marriage Equality. We want it ALL. FULL equality, in everything.

Even if you get marriage equality that isn't going to grant equality under the law. At best you will have marriage equality in states that allow it. Read DOMA.

Heterosexual marriages are recognized, not only in all 50 states, but in all other COUNTRIES as well. If our right to marriage equality is recognized, it would be recognized in all 50 states. I doubt Uganda would be excited about it, but, oh well.

Of course, DOMA would have to fall by the wayside.

I doubt DOMA is going to just fall by the wayside and everyone needs to be careful not to push the matter too much because it wouldn't take too much at this point to turn it into a constitutional amendment.

I support equality under the law. That includes marriage equality. But I don't know how you can have marriage equality when you don't have equality under the law. I have always felt this was a matter of putting the cart before the horse. And my concern is the horse tripped over the carriage in California and broke a leg and may not survive.

Even in simple deals with businessmen, you always bargain for more than you expect to get. If states like California and New York never advance as far as to allow marriage equality, and yes, FULL equality, the rest of us will never even get so much as a mention on the hate crimes laws for more conservative states.

Marriage equality is the next step to FULL equality. We are not going to get equality all at once. We will have to fight for it step by step law by law, state by state, until we do have FULL equality.

Marriage equality is something that is very important even to those of us in ultra conservative states. Nothing is more fundamental to our lives than our partners. The lives we build with our partners IS THE BASIS of our lives. It is no different than straight married couples. Until we have FULL equality, we are going to have to fight for marriage equality, adoption rights, visitation rights, estate rights, and every other right that so many take for granted.

Simply physics...gravity...you aim higher and throw the best you have at something, so you can actually hit the mark. Would you say women in the suffragette movement ONLY wanted the right to vote? Of course, you wouldn't. So, why are you saying it here? Can you see what we are trying to tell you now? Does that make more sense?

So we are real clear on this and someone doesn't accuse me of being a homophobe I was a member of the Federal Club of Human Rights Campaign when this started and this is why I will not ever support Human Rights Campaign again. I heard all the arguments. From "professional" gays and lesbians who either have never known what real discrimination is or have forgotten what it is and merely wanted it all. For themselves.

I watched ENDA in particular go out the window because of "Million for Marriage." ENDA was very close to finally passing. And then Human Rights Campaign announced "Million for Marriage."

How many have lost their jobs in states where "equality laws" don't exist? How many have lost their jobs in states where "equality laws" do exist but don't apply to "private" employers?

Go bargain with someone else's rights. And don't ever accuse me of not supporting equal rights. My money was where my mouth was. Where it always was and always will be. And it will never be with Human Rights Campaign again.

If the horse dies because it tripped over the cart and broke its leg in California I will blame Human Rights Campaign. For us losing the horse as well as the cart.

so gay people need to shut their mouths and not push their luck?

after eight years of Obama appointments.

Yes, if marriage equality is achieved, it will de facto give equality under the law. That's just logical.

:wtf:

I believe that's what they were alluding to. If not, I wash my hands of it.

Congress cannot pass a statute and overturn the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. That requires an Amendment.

I can't even comprehend the idiocy of this comment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

i agree that it's legal to fire someone on any basis, including homosexuality, except for certain specific protections such as race, sex, religion and national origin.

homosexuality is protections have been granted in a small number of states and cities as well.


however, if you distribute an employee handbook that says you will never fire anyone for reason x, y, or z, then you cannot fire an employee for any of those reasons. sound in this case like the employee handbook said homosexuality was permitted.

...when my partner interviewed for his current job, he was asked, in the interview, "what does your wife do". He calmly explained that his "wife" was a man. They not only hired him, a year later they hired me too. This is in NE Florida, a Southern Baptist stronghold!

asking "what does your wife do" could be seen (legally) as a backhanded way of getting information about a person's marital status.

given a list of questions that could not be asked at a job interview. Among them were any questions that concerned the marital status of the interviewee. I was under the impression that this list had been prepared by an attorney.

and they ALL have either coached their people who do interviews to stay away from questions that even HINT about marital status, or have a list of questions that don't include them.

this likely won't matter. The only thing possible to sue over is the fact that the employee handbook says there will be no such discrimination, and the lawyer would argue that employees had a reasonable expectation that the handbook made promises to them. That suit will not win, but it will cost this guy some big money in lawyer fees, and that's a very good thing.

The situation is just wrong, and yet, this passage really bugs me:
"Hill said he used to be the human resources director and is shocked at the owner’s decision to dismiss him because of his sexual preference."

I didn't think it was a preference.

The problem is, this persistent idea that being gay is a preference or choice is what leads to discrimination. If people believe that it's a decision rather than an inherent part of some one's character they are more likely to be comfortable with discrimination. Of course, that's not totally true, there's still a lot of discrimination against African Americans, and no one believes they could change the color of their skin. However, many do unfairly attribute negative behaviors to minority groups and use that as justification. Even though I consider myself very progressive, I find myself falling into the stereotype trap sometimes, and have to remind myself of my folly.

So, in the quest for full rights and acceptance for gay people, do we try to communicate the idea that sexual orientation is not a choice (any more than skin color is), or do we say that you will never get people to believe that and communicate that it shouldn't matter if some one "chooses" to be gay. After all, religion is largely a choice and for the most part, we no longer allow discrimination on that basis.

What makes being gay a legal acknowldeged minority is the Court's acceptance that being gay is an inherent quality or attribute, and as such, when faced with well known discrimination, laws passed regarding gays such as PropHate8, are subject to a special consideration by the Courts, such as review on the basis of either:

1.) rational basis
2.) intermeidate scrutiny
3.) strict scrutiny

If you accept that it is a preference, then, when you claim a violation of civil rights, the answer will be, "But it's your choice. So change and you will not be discriminated against."

religious preferences.

in Tennessee. Of course, the guy who did this discriminating is Hindu. Not a good old boy by any means.

"In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept which was written of by Thomas Jefferson." -wiki

I said it shouldn't matter if it was a choice, not that it doesn't to some people.

It seems like a straw man argument to me, but sadly it doesn't to other people. That is, while I don't believe it's a choice, some do. While I don't believe it should matter even if it was a choice, others disagree.

Doubt it - fucking idiots don't care enough to.

Can't have any tangible issues to worry about, don'cha know. Can't let actual assaults and crimes against gay men and women get in the way of our three-month whine about how badly Obama hurt our feelings!

"working while gay" :eyes:

Still, if the owner had been able to say the guy's work performance was hindered by his being gay, he'd have had a leg to stand on. Heck, in TN he may be able to get away with this, but his lawyer bills are going to be steep, and he'll lose as a result of his ugly discrimination, even if he wins the case.