Why I am Not a Fan of the Equality Act

[Wes Mantooth]

It's my hope that I can share this in a way that does not come across as offensive, or dismissive of the issues some face.  It may be wishful thinking, but that is my intent.  I just wanted to share my perspective and to see where others lie.  Be it in agreement, or if someone thinks I'm coming from a place of ignorance, or anything in between.  All conversation is welcome.

The reason I do not support this bill is because I think it provides special protections to the LGBT community that do not exist for the people of this country as a whole.  Not only that, but legislation opens a whole can of worms that further complicates it.

Let me start out by saying this, I can emphasize with issues LGBT face and I do think we as a country still have a lot of work to do in preventing uneccessary discrimination.  But much of that work I think needs to happen internally, from person to person.  I also think, even more than education, that it will take time.  I don't think the goverment can wave a magic wand and fix that.

I'm going to provide some examples of what I consider special protections with comparisons.  Please know that while they may be seem asburd (they may very well be), they're not being made for anything other than my attempt to make a point.

Let's say a transexual person either does not get a job, or gets fired from a job and it's their belief it's because of the fact they're trans.  What is really happening here (if their belief is true) is that they're being disciminated against because of their appearance.  Can we all agree on that, that discimation against a trans person is based on appearance?

Now that trans person can either fight to get their job back, or they could have a potential lawsuit.  At this point, some of you may be thinking "Well, that great.  That's the way it should be, discrimation on appearance shouldn't exist."

But where are the protections for other people who gets disciminated for their appearance?  It happens all the time.  There's all sorts of reasons people face discrimation based on their appearance.

What if someone doesn't get a job because they have a terrible skin conditon, or they're obese, or they have issues with their teeth, or whatever?  The company might not say anything outright, but this does happen.  Conciously or unconciously people are judged on their appearance, and this can lead to discrimination.

Now let's say the trans person takes a job and transitions afterwards and then, for whatever reason, are let go.  Why do they get protection when say, someone who may decides to start dressing in all black and painting their nails does not?  What about a guy in stuffy sales job who decides to grow a mullet along with some mutton chops?

That just doesn't seem fair and equal to me.  One group's employment cannot be affected by appearance, as in it's the law.  While no such laws exists for appearances outside that particular community.  

Let's take discrimination against gay people in the workforce.  Some of that may be based on religious views, but I think it can be driven by a number of other things as well.

Let's say a flamboyently gay man doesn't get a job, or is let go from a job.  We don't need to specualte if it's motivated by religion, workplace culture/fit, or bias.  This man now feels he's been unfairly treated.  He now has the power to keep his job, or he as a potential lawsuit.  Again, some of you may be saying "Great, that the way it should be..."

Where do those protections exist for people outside of that community?

Say there's a start-up company and it's filled with what we'll call hipsters.  There's a man either tries to work there, or works there and gets let go.  This guy is as capable at his job as the gay man is at his respective postion in the other scenario.  But let's say the difference here is that he's kind of jock, enjoys talking about sports, and fits all of the other stereotypical traits that might not be valued by an office full of hipsters.

The man's personality and outward apperance lead to him not being employed with this company, not the quality of his work.  Where are his protections?  Why is ok to discriminate against him based on these things but not the gay man?

A woman from down south, who says "y'all" and takes a a couple days off every year to go Taledega with husband doesn't get the job, or is let go from a job at the snooty East Coast office.  Again, not based on work.  Where are her protections?

I could on and on, but I think you get the point.

And the biggest problem I have with this is how do you know for sure discrimation existed at all in a hiring/firing decision?  How do you prove it?  Do you think a company is just going to come out say "Hey, you didn't get the job" or "We have to let you go" and then follow it up with "because your trans/gay"?

What's to stop LGBT people who were rightfully fired, based on performance and nothing else, from claiming discrimination?

What do you now think happens if a company needs to lay off 20% of their sales team, and it comes down to a few people who are pretty much equal in performance and worth to the company.  One of those people happens to be trans, the others happen to be cis or straight.  How much you wanna bet the company keeps the trans person just out of fear of a lawsuit or bad PR?

I'll stop here, as I've rambled on way too much.  I'm very curious to hear responses from people that definitely appear to be to the left from me.  Maybe I'll learn something, maybe they'll understand some of concerns or compaints.  Either way, just looking for a dialogue.

[Wes Mantooth]

Crap, I put this in the wrong thread (Should be in PNR). My apolgies, I'm gonna hunt down a mod.

[fredtoast]

You don't understand how any of this works.

First of all the discrimination against transgender people is not just based on appearance.  It is often very difficult to identify a transgender person just by appearance.  If you don't believe me then talk to the large crowd of guys in P&R who discuss the possibility of getting "surprised" by some one they thought was a girl, but turned out to be a guy.

Second of all it is very difficult to win a discrimination lawsuit.  Not every black person who does not get hired has grounds for a lawsuit based on discrimination.  It takes a lot of proof of patterns of discrimination or other evidence to prevail in court.

These anti-discrimination laws are mainly designed to prohibit admitted open policies of discrimination like adoption agencies who refuse to consider same sex couples.

[GMDino]

There was a case a few years ago where a man (a dentist) fired his assistant because she was "too beautiful" and he was having trouble resisting the temptation to have an affair...even though she never wanted an affair.

She sued.

And lost.

There are lots of reasons one could sue for not getting or losing a job: age, color, sex, that doesn't guarantee a win even with the protections.

There was a guy who said once he would high gay men...but only if they weren't "too" flamboyant because he didn't like that.  Nothing to do if they could do the job...just don't be "too" gay.

So I still side with giving them the protections.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 02:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You don't understand how any of this works.

First of all the discrimination against transgender people is not just based on appearance.  It is often very difficult to identify a transgender person just by appearance.  If you don't believe me then talk to the large crowd of guys in P&R who discuss the possibility of getting "surprised" by some one they thought was a girl, but turned out to be a guy.

Second of all it is very difficult to win a discrimination lawsuit.  Not every black person who does not get hired has grounds for a lawsuit based on discrimination.  It takes a lot of proof of patterns of discrimination or other evidence to prevail in court.

These anti-discrimination laws are mainly designed to prohibit admitted open policies of discrimination like adoption agencies who refuse to consider same sex couples.

Fair enough.  I understand it's a complex issue.  I'm glad you chimed in, I'm just looking for perspective.

Do you think that even the threat of litigation or bad PR is now going to affect hiring/firing decisions?  And more specifically, not always in a fair and equal way?

I don't doubt you when you say discriminations suits are hard to win (you're the lawyer, not me), but I don't think that stops a lot of people from threatening them or filing. 

You know better than me that all of this costs companies a lot of money, even if it's a hard case for a plantiff to win.  I could see a lot of companies being greatly influenced by this in the future, and not always in a way that is based on merit.

I stil stand by my point though, there's all sorts of people who are discriminated against, for all sorts of different reasons.  It seems unfair that certain groups now have protections that others do not.

You can't tell me that certain companies, especially small and mid-size, don't discriminate against certain people.  Certain companies can still point to it not being the right fit or that a certain workplace culture exists while others can not.

Ex:  The diverse hipster company can continue to discriminate against the stereotypical jock, who walks around drinking protein shakes. or the redneck, who drives a truck with camo mudflaps as not being a great fit for their environment.  But the business started by a few frat bros can't decide that flamboyently gay people or a trans person may not be the best for for theirs either. 

Fwiw, I think both companies can be right, given certain circumstances.  Rednecks that loves hunting and fishing probably aren't going to mesh well with an office that's 50% vegan and who are hard left of center.  The same came be true for the other company.  If some frat bros start a business where they have a company fantasty league, and they do a keg stands the last day of a successful quarter, they might decide that certain people probably don't fit their enviornemnt either.

The only difference is the 2nd company is now liable to get sued for their hiring practices.  The 1st company can continue to reject every applicant that doesn't look the part, or they can let them go down the road if they feel they don't fit the culture.

[CKwi88]

First of all, no, we all can't agree that discrimination against LBGT is based on appearance, discrimination against LBGT is because...well...They're LBGT, by definition. It has nothing to do with appearance, personality or speech (unless it's a disability I suppose).

LBGT people who will try and sue will face the same burden that other protected classes face when filing suit, one that is rarely met. This is not special protection. I don't think that you have a understanding of discrimination lawsuits that is based in any sort of reality.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 02:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Do you think that even the threat of litigation or bad PR is now going to affect hiring/firing decisions?  And more specifically, not always in a fair and equal way?

If it prevents discrimination then I don't see how it could NOT be in a fair and equal way.

(02-26-2021, 02:56 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Ex:  The diverse hipster company can continue to discriminate against the stereotypical jock, who walks around drinking protein shakes. or the redneck, who drives a truck with camo mudflaps as not being a great fit for their environment.  But the business started by a few frat bros can't decide that flamboyently gay people or a trans person may not be the best for for theirs either.  ntinue to reject every applicant that doesn't look the part, or they can let them go down the road if they feel they don't fit the culture.

The protection for sexual preference and/or identity does not cover how a person dresses or behaves.  Dress codes and rules against blasting broadway songs in the workplace can still be enforced equally against all employees.  Same for rules against smashing beer cans against your head or field dressing game in the lunchroom.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 02:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: There was a guy who said once he would high gay men...but only if they weren't "too" flamboyant because he didn't like that.  Nothing to do if they could do the job...just don't be "too" gay.

So I still side with giving them the protections.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but this is my honest opinion.

I can think of plenty of reasons a flamboyently gay person may not be a good fit for a company, whereas one who is not flamboyent would be perfectly fine.  The reason being obviously has nothing to with sexual prefence (both are gay) and everything to do with personality.

Some personalites fit well with certain work cultures, to certain clientele, and some do not.  I think this has always been true.

I don't see any more of problem with a company choosing not to hire flamboyently gay men (personality related) than I do from a company choosing not to hire protein shake chugging frat bros (personality related), or rednecks who love hunting and fishing and Nascar (personality related).

I'm honestly not saying any of this to be offensive.  If someone thinks I need to be more educated then I'm willing to listen.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If it prevents discrimination then I don't see how it could NOT be in a fair and equal way.

My point was basically.. 

1.) That a company may hire, or choose to keep a LGBT person over someone who is not, only due to fear of potential PR and legal ramifications. 

2.) That no such discrimination existed in the hiring/firing (completely merit based), but the LGBT person may choose to pursue a complaint or legal action that is not at all warranted.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 03:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'll probably get flamed for this, but this is my honest opinion.

I can think of plenty of reasons a flamboyently gay person may not be a good fit for a company, whereas one who is not flamboyent would be perfectly fine.  The reason being obviously has nothing to with sexual prefence (both are gay) and everything to do with personality.

Some personalites fit well with certain work cultures, to certain clientele, and some do not.  I think this has always been true.

I don't see any more of problem with a company choosing not to hire flamboyently gay men (personality related) than I do from a company choosing not to hire protein shake chugging frat bros (personality related), or rednecks who love hunting and fishing and Nascar (personality related).

I'm honestly not saying any of this to be offensive.  If someone thinks I need to be more educated then I'm willing to listen.  

If it is just based on personality then that is perfectly fine.  But the law has nothing to do with the level of "flamboyance".  All it covers is sexual preference and/or identity.  Nothing in the law protects an individual's behavior and/or dress.

I am shocked that there are still people out there who honestly believe there are no gay/trans people who are redneck hunters and no straight men who dress neatly and like show tunes.

[GMDino]

(02-26-2021, 03:11 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I'll probably get flamed for this, but this is my honest opinion.

I can think of plenty of reasons a flamboyently gay person may not be a good fit for a company, whereas one who is not flamboyent would be perfectly fine.  The reason being obviously has nothing to with sexual prefence (both are gay) and everything to do with personality.

Some personalites fit well with certain work cultures, to certain clientele, and some do not.  I think this has always been true.

I don't see any more of problem with a company choosing not to hire flamboyently gay men (personality related) than I do from a company choosing not to hire protein shake chugging frat bros (personality related), or rednecks who love hunting and fishing and Nascar (personality related).

I'm honestly not saying any of this to be offensive.  If someone thinks I need to be more educated then I'm willing to listen.  

I swear this not flaming or attacking you:  The bold is what discrimination is based on a lot of the time...the way its' "always" been.  

Women can't be lawyers...that's a man's job.
Blacks can't be in management...that's for white people.
Gays can't be teachers...that's for straight people.  What will happen if the children see a gay teacher?!?!

Same with any other discrimination we want to choose: Can't have a fat model, can't have whites marrying blacks, gay couples can't adopt, whatever...that's the way it's "always been".

Doesn't matter if they can do the job, if they are in love, if they would be good parents...they are blocked because of some factor they can't control.

Just an observation.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 03:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: My point was basically.. 

1.) That a company may hire, or choose to keep a LGBT person over someone who is not, only due to fear of potential PR and legal ramifications. 

2.) That no such discrimination existed in the hiring/firing (completely merit based), but the LGBT person may choose to pursue a complaint or legal action that is not at all warranted.

People who actually work in HR and understand how discrimination suits work don't really worry about this.  They know it is very difficult to win such and action without some evidence of discrimination.  It cost money hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit.  Even lawyers hired on a contingency basis are paid expenses and they are usually not willing to invest their time in a case with no evidence

 

[CKwi88]

(02-26-2021, 03:19 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: My point was basically.. 

1.) That a company may hire, or choose to keep a LGBT person over someone who is not, only due to fear of potential PR and legal ramifications. 

2.) That no such discrimination existed in the hiring/firing (completely merit based), but the LGBT person may choose to pursue a complaint or legal action that is not at all warranted.

Can't say I was around for it but I'd bet money if you replace "LBGT" with "black" these exact "arguments" were being made in 1964.

[Au165]

(02-26-2021, 03:43 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Can't say I was around for it but I'd bet money if you replace "LBGT" with "black" these exact "arguments" were being made in 1964.

These arguments have been used with people not wanting to hire women before.

My wife works in HR, the bottom line is people who get fired will attempt to sue you for anything. This is why they document anything and everything and why they have documentation to back up the reason they are firing someone. Proper documentation is the key to any of these things. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 03:01 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: First of all, no, we all can't agree that discrimination against LBGT is based on appearance, discrimination against LBGT is because...well...They're LBGT, by definition. It has nothing to do with appearance, personality or speech (unless it's a disability I suppose).

The portion of my post that discussed appearance was specifically related to trans people, not LGBT as a whole.

Let's be honest, for trans people that are facing true discrimication in the workforce it's 99.9% going to be because of appearance.  As in you clearly tell they're trans and, for whatever reason, this brings about issues with their employer.

If they're actual indistinguishable from their gender I would guess the issues faced would be a fraction of fraction of the issues faced by a trans person who is distinguishable.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 03:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am shocked that there are still people out there who honestly believe there are no gay/trans people who are redneck hunters and no straight men who dress neatly and like show tunes.

Please don't do that.  Don't put words in my mouth.  You do this in Jungle Noise, but I expected more from you in this forum.

I NEVER said anything to that effect.  I merely used stereotypes (jocks and rednecks) to counter the flamboyently gay man (another stereotype).  I only did so for discussion's sake to paint a picture about how personality can affect fit in a certain workplace.

Fwiw, one of by best friends brother's is gay and he fishes more than almost anyone I know.  He's also hunts and takes a weeklong trip to the Upper Pennisula every year.  I don't need to be educated on the fact that some gay/trans people like stereotypical straight/cis activites, or vice-versa.

My point was very simple.  Certain companies avoid certainly personalites due to fit.  That's all I was saying.  And no, I'm not saying being gay is a personality.  

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 04:04 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Please don't do that.  Don't put words in my mouth.  You do this in Jungle Noise, but I expected more from you in this forum.

I am not putting any words in your mouth.  Every single post you have made about gay/trans people has had to do with their dress or behavior.  The very first point you made was that "everyone agrees" all the discrimination is based on their "appearance" instead of their sexual preference/identity.

In every single post you have identified sexual preference/identity based on stereotypes.  It is literally ALL you have done in this entire thread.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 03:50 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Let's be honest, for trans people that are facing true discrimication in the workforce it's 99.9% going to be because of appearance.  As in you clearly tell they're trans and, for whatever reason, this brings about issues with their employer.

Actually it is almost always based on religious beliefs.  All of the evidence shows that strongly religious Christians and Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of people who discriminate against gay/trans people.  No one else seems to say their job performance is based on appearance.

[Benton]

Why do you hate equality?



Just kidding. I'll give the post more of a read later (on my lunch break), but just skimming, I'd disagree that discriminating against trans people is just based on appearance. For a lot of people, it's a religious issue. Trans people are defying "the way God made them" similar to gay people "choosing" to be gay despite "how God made them."

I think there should be some protection to differentiate between the freedom of religion and the freedom for me to force you conform to my religion .

My wife worked with a male to female trans person for a while. You couldn't tell it by looking at her. Small town, eventually management found out and dismissed her.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is almost always based on religious beliefs.  All of the evidence shows that strongly religious Christians and Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of people who discriminate against gay/trans people.  No one else seems to say their job performance is based on appearance.

I can think of tons of jobs where appearance affects job performance.  People may not like to admit that, but it's 100% the truth. 

There's a reason so many pharmaceutical reps are attractive females.  It leads to more sales.  They can get face time with Dr's easier and, like or not, their appearance drives sales.

Go to an upscale hotel.  Like or not, but these people are the face of the hotel .  They're not hiring people with tattoos on their face.

Go to high end jeweler and take a look at woman at the counter.  What % of them are obese?  Does it match the national average?

If you go to a skate shop you might expect to see a guy who fits the personlity of that shop.  He probably looks like a stereotypical skater.  Why?  Because he relates to the clientele.

So for the same reasons, if you go to a supplement store, the owner might prefer to hire meatheads who look the part.  Would that owner be wrong to not want to hire someone who is clearly trans to work that counter?  Is it not safe to assume that this could affect this person's performance (sales)?

I think that's an honest question.  In certain situations and in certain companies, appearance and personality need to mesh with the job.  I don't think there's anything wrong in admitting that.  And I'm not sure how religion factors into decisions that are clearly made in the interest of business.