Why I am Not a Fan of the Equality Act

[CKwi88]

(02-26-2021, 04:45 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 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.

The Equality Act does not make appearance/personality protected classes. The Equality Act does not force business owners to hire LGBT workers. 

If your only opposition to it is that LGBT people could sue on the basis of discrimination, it's a pretty shit argument.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 05:38 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The Equality Act does not make appearance/personality protected classes. The Equality Act does not force business owners to hire LGBT workers. 

If your only opposition to it is that LGBT people could sue on the basis of discrimination, it's a pretty shit argument.

Fair enough.

I just wonder how many cases may arrise when appearance/personality (fit for job) were indeed the determing factor, yet the person who feels like they were discriminated against is either unable to realize this, or just flat out doesn't care; they just default to sexual preference or gender identity as being the cause.

[BmorePat87]

This is like not supporting the Civil Rights Act because you want to be able to fire someone because they sound or look "too Black". It's homophobia disguised in a terrible excuse.

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2021, 06:09 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fair enough.

I just wonder how many cases may arrise when appearance/personality (fit for job) were indeed the determing factor, yet the person who feels like they were discriminated against is either unable to realize this, or just flat out doesn't care; they just default to sexual preference or gender identity as being the cause.

Lawyers will not file those type of cases because they know they won't get paid.

This is not something new.  We have had laws in place against discrimination against protected classes for over 50 years.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 06:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is like not supporting the Civil Rights Act because you want to be able to fire someone because they sound or look "too Black". It's homophobia disguised in a terrible excuse.

I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about, automatically defaulting to homophobia as being the cause.

If there are other groups of people that can be denied a job for their personality or their appearance then the same should be true for LGBT people. There could be plenty of times there's a very good reason for that, that has nothing to do with actual orientation/identity.

It makes perfect sense for a retail store that employs perky and energetic females to sell some bubblegum and rainbows women's product (Spanx?) to not hire goth girls.

It makes perfect sense for a vegan bakery that staffs people who ride longboards to work, and all of their male employees have man-buns are wear ironic 80's clothing, to not want to hire a guy with a Metallica tatoo, who wears jorts, and who drives a Ford F350.

It makes perfect sense for a yoga studio and spa not to want to hire an obese woman who weighs 400+ pounds to work the front counter.

So why is not ok for a Gold Gym to not want to hire someone clearly who is transgender to work the front desk?  Why is not ok for a distributor that sells to trucking companies to not want to hire a flamboyently gay man to be their outside rep in Texas?

There can reasons beyond homophobia that fuel these decisions.

What if a company is willing to hire a transgender person who is indistinguishable from their gender, but they're not willing to hire one that is distinguishable?  Are they transphobic, or are they making a decision based on appearance?

What if a company is willing to a hire a gay man, but not a flamboyently gay man?  Are they homophobic, or are they making a decision based on personality in relation to the work culture?

My fear is that the answers to these questions and the reasoning behind them won't matter for a lot of people. And if that's the case, then LGBTQ are indeed getting certain protections others do not.

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2021, 07:34 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about, automatically defaulting to homophobia as being the cause.

If there are other groups of people that can be denied a job for their personality or their appearance then the same should be true for LGBT people. There could be plenty of times there's a very good reason for that, that has nothing to do with actual orientation/identity.

It makes perfect sense for a retail store that employs perky and energetic females to sell some bubblegum and rainbows women's product (Spanx?) to not hire goth girls.

It makes perfect sense for a vegan bakery that staffs people who ride longboards to work, and all of their male employees have man-buns are wear ironic 80's clothing, to not want to hire a guy with a Metallica tatoo, who wears jorts, and who drives a Ford F350.

It makes perfect sense for a yoga studio and spa not to want to hire an obese woman who weighs 400+ pounds to work the front counter.

So why is not ok for a Gold Gym to not want to hire someone clearly who is transgender to work the front desk?  Why is not ok for a distributor that sells to trucking companies to not want to hire a flamboyently gay man to be their outside rep in Texas?

There can reasons beyond homophobia that fuel these decisions.

What if a company is willing to hire a transgender person who is indistinguishable from their gender, but they're not willing to hire one that is distinguishable?  Are they transphobic, or are they making a decision based on appearance?

What if a company is willing to a hire a gay man, but not a flamboyently gay man?  Are they homophobic, or are they making a decision based on personality in relation to the work culture?

My fear is that the answers to these questions and the reasoning behind them won't matter for a lot of people. And if that's the case, then LGBTQ are indeed getting certain protections others do not.

This is the same logic that would cause someone to dismiss the Civil Rights Act because they don’t want to hire someone for looking “too Black”.

It’s not a real problem and it requires believing in stereotypes to justify.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lawyers will not file those type of cases because they know they won't get paid.

This is not something new.  We have had laws in place against discrimination against protected classes for over 50 years.

A lot of lawyers take on cases knowing companies will settle out of court, do they not?  A lot of companies will settle to avoid legal fees, will they not?

Quick story:  A couple years ago a transgender person sued the Cincinnati Library and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (their insurance company) because their insurance would not cover gender reassignment surgery.

Keep in mind, Cincinnati Library, like most libraries is pretty liberal.  They hired this person years back, allowed her to transition, and there were no issues.  There was nothing in the lawsuit to indicate anything wrong with the work environment or complaints with the culture.

Yet they still got sued.  Because they didn't have the foresight to search for a policy that covered this back in 2014, or because their provider simply wouldn't cover it.

Anyways, the case went on for awhile, and it was dismissed.  But guess what?  The library (not Blue Cross) decided to up pay out of their own pocket to cover both the surgery and the legal bills of their employee. 

I suppose they didn't legally have to, but a decision was made to take care of it.  One would assume just to put the whole thing to bed, and to move on.  (the trasgender employee was still speaking out against the library in the media after the dismisal)

So when it was all said it done, the employee got their surgery, the lawyers got paid, and the library didn't have to pay out the bigger settlement that would have come if they ruled in favor of the plantiff.

PS I have looked into working at the library.  Unless you're running a branch, you're looking at making between $10 and $15 an hour.  I doubt this employee could have afford all of these attorney fees themselves.  And I have to think the attorney knew this would be a tough case.  Maybe their plan all along wasn't to win, is was to bully someone into a settlement?

[Belsnickel]

Trans discrimination (and discriminations against other members of the Alphabet Mafia) is sex-based discrimination. It isn't appearance discrimination.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 07:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is the same logic that would cause someone to dismiss the Civil Rights Act because they don’t want to hire someone for looking “too Black”.

It’s not a real problem and it requires believing in stereotypes to justify.

Are you claiming that flamboyently gay people simply do not exist, and that they're only a stereotype?

Are you claiming that there are not transgender people who are clearly distinguishable (Ex: The "It's Ma'am" Gamestop woman)

Why is it so hard to understand why some businesses might feel like it's not be the best fit with certain types that just so happen to exist in a larger community? 

I don't see anything wrong with a drag club or gay bar being opposed to hiring some butch dude, who wears a baseball cap and dips Skoal.  It's not in their best interest, and it has nothing to do with the man being straight.

So why is there something wrong with a men's club/cigar bar not wanting to hire an effeminate gay man?  Why should the men's club be open to a potential lawsuit for following the same logic as the drag club?

You say these are simply stereotypes but similar examples will present themselves.  People (plantiffs and lawyers) will look for opportunities to cash out.  Others will look for opportunities for attention, both hurting the businesses.  I think it's incredibly naive to think otherwise.

[CJD]

I know you said your examples are meant to be outlandish, but...yea. They're really bad examples. Your identity is not something you can just stop wearing like you could black make up, a mullet etc. I mean, you could hide your identity, which is what many gay people had been doing for decades before it was more socially acceptable, but that's not an ideal scenario and certainly not a standard we should want to be acceptable, legally or otherwise.

With that said, I honestly think a lot of the protected class laws are essentially the government telling companies "You can fire black/gay/muslim/etc people, just don't be obvious about it." I am certain people are fired for being part of these protected classes every day. The company just...cites something nebulous and subjective like performance or drive or budget cuts or whatever. As long as there is no blatant racism/sexism/etc that is recordable (like emails) or otherwise available as evidence, you can always deny deny deny.

Not that this makes the laws bad, necessarily. I think making a law forbidding outward and obvious racism (And leaving insidious under the table racism in place), you actually create a slowly improving work environment. Forbidding the worst behavior often leads to communities and societies slowly becoming more civil overall. It's certainly not perfect, but it's at least something. People's beliefs and perceptions are shaped by what society and the government deem acceptable. So if racism is seen as unacceptable in society, then people are less likely to propagate racism, if you understand my meaning. So naming LGBTQ people as a protected class has a decent chance of resulting in people gradually becoming less hateful towards them. At least, that's the hope.

Of course, crafting society and culture through policy isn't ideal, but I think society is trending that way regardless. We're becoming a more accepting society (on average) every year. We just have to keep working hard to continue in that direction.

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2021, 08:43 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Are you claiming that flamboyently gay people simply do not exist, and that they're only a stereotype?

Are you claiming that there are not transgender people who are clearly distinguishable (Ex: The "It's Ma'am" Gamestop woman)

Why is it so hard to understand why some businesses might feel like it's not be the best fit with certain types that just so happen to exist in a larger community? 

I don't see anything wrong with a drag club or gay bar being opposed to hiring some butch dude, who wears a baseball cap and dips Skoal.  It's not in their best interest, and it has nothing to do with the man being straight.

So why is there something wrong with a men's club/cigar bar not wanting to hire an effeminate gay man?  Why should the men's club be open to a potential lawsuit for following the same logic as the drag club?

You say these are simply stereotypes but similar examples will present themselves.  People (plantiffs and lawyers) will look for opportunities to cash out.  Others will look for opportunities for attention, both hurting the businesses.  I think it's incredibly naive to think otherwise.

You can replace everything in this post with stereotypes of minorities to make the same argument against the Civil Rights Act. Are you also opposing that law?

[Benton]

(02-26-2021, 04:45 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 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.

I may be wrong, but I think you're blurring transgenderism and transvestitism.

Businesses are within their rights to select someone who best represents their business; businesses shouldn't be within their rights to discriminate against the gender of a person in the past, possibly decades ago.

[BmorePat87]

?

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 09:12 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I know you said your examples are meant to be outlandish, but...yea. They're really bad examples. Your identity is not something you can just stop wearing like you could black make up, a mullet etc. I mean, you could hide your identity, which is what many gay people had been doing for decades before it was more socially acceptable, but that's not an ideal scenario and certainly not a standard we should want to be acceptable, legally or otherwise.

With that said, I honestly think a lot of the protected class laws are essentially the government telling companies "You can fire black/gay/muslim/etc people, just don't be obvious about it." I am certain people are fired for being part of these protected classes every day. The company just...cites something nebulous and subjective like performance or drive or budget cuts or whatever. As long as there is no blatant racism/sexism/etc that is recordable (like emails) or otherwise available as evidence, you can always deny deny deny.

Not that this makes the laws bad, necessarily. I think making a law forbidding outward and obvious racism (And leaving insidious under the table racism in place), you actually create a slowly improving work environment. Forbidding the worst behavior often leads to communities and societies slowly becoming more civil overall. It's certainly not perfect, but it's at least something. People's beliefs and perceptions are shaped by what society and the government deem acceptable. So if racism is seen as unacceptable in society, then people are less likely to propagate racism, if you understand my meaning. So naming LGBTQ people as a protected class has a decent chance of resulting in people gradually becoming less hateful towards them. At least, that's the hope.

Of course, crafting society and culture through policy isn't ideal, but I think society is trending that way regardless. We're becoming a more accepting society (on average) every year. We just have to keep working hard to continue in that direction.

I apologize if my examples come across as flippant or disrespectful.  They're honestly not intended to be.

The only reason I used stereotypes (jocks, rednecks, flamboyent) is just to try to show that there's all sorts of personalities that exist within both straight and gay people.  I just used extremes to try to make a point. (that certain people aren't meant for certain jobs)

I actually agree with pretty much all of what you're saying.  In my initital post I kind of alluded to many of the same things (a company is going to find ways to label a decision differently, individuals bring about change more than the government, etc.)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding a great deal about this.  Obviously a lot people have mentioned it's incredibly hard to win a descrimination suit, and this only protects preference and indentity.  I just worry that that's not going to stop other complaints and suits from happening.

[fredtoast]

Just to clarify a point I made earlier. We need this law not just for "under the table" discrimination. It is needed to end admitted obvious discrimination policies like refusing to let same sex couples adopt children.

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-26-2021, 09:27 PM)Benton Wrote: I may be wrong, but I think you're blurring transgenderism and transvestitism.

Businesses are within their rights to select someone who best represents their business; businesses shouldn't be within their rights to discriminate against the gender of a person in the past, possibly decades ago.

I may be.  My knowledge of this is extremely limited and is based mostly on what I come across online.

I just know I've read a number of articles or seen threads with people who identify as transgender, who are clearly distinguishable.  There's nothing necessairly wrong with that, but I do think this could present problems for certain employers.

I understand the intent of law is not to discriminate against gender or preference.  But I wonder if complaints and cases will arrise where more went into a company's decision.  Some people may default to "because I was gay" or "because I was trans" when it really isnt that simple.

Anways, I think I've probably said enough.  At this point I'm going in circles.  I appreciate the conversation though.

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2021, 11:26 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I apologize if my examples come across as flippant or disrespectful.  They're honestly not intended to be.

The only reason I used stereotypes (jocks, rednecks, flamboyent) is just to try to show that there's all sorts of personalities that exist within both straight and gay people.  I just used extremes to try to make a point. (that certain people aren't meant for certain jobs)

I actually agree with pretty much all of what you're saying.  In my initital post I kind of alluded to many of the same things (a company is going to find ways to label a decision differently, individuals bring about change more than the government, etc.)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding a great deal about this.  Obviously a lot people have mentioned it's incredibly hard to win a descrimination suit, and this only protects preference and indentity.  I just worry that that's not going to stop other complaints and suits from happening.

If you repeatedly refuse to answer a simple question regarding the exact same complaint applied to minorities because of the decades old Civil Rights Act, the only thing one can assume is that your issue if with gay and trans people. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-27-2021, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you repeatedly refuse to answer a simple question regarding the exact same complaint applied to minorities because of the decades old Civil Rights Act, the only thing one can assume is that your issue if with gay and trans people. 

I'm not going to continue to reply to someone who continues to have the same exact response.

I replied earlier, tried my best to provide my reasoning, along with some examples and questions, and you chose to just reply with the same thing that I had already previously replied to.

You completely ignored my post and basically accused me of being a racist, or the equivalent to one in regards to homophobia

What's the point?  How many times can you ask me the same question, and how many times should I be expected to answer?  The very least you could do, when I've put in some effort into my reply to you, is maybe add some context to your arguement.  Maybe specifically address some points I made.  Counter them.  Do something other than just copy and pasting the same exact statement 4 different times.

These are not the same exact complaints as then, nor is the disrimination seen by LGBTQ people in 2021 anywhere near the levels seen by black people in 1964.  Also, a race of people is a lot more easily defined that all of nuances that exist in the LGBTQ community.

Whatever, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I simply sharing my thoughts.  I'm glad some people here took the time to share theirs.

[CJD]

(02-27-2021, 11:26 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I apologize if my examples come across as flippant or disrespectful.  They're honestly not intended to be.

The only reason I used stereotypes (jocks, rednecks, flamboyent) is just to try to show that there's all sorts of personalities that exist within both straight and gay people.  I just used extremes to try to make a point. (that certain people aren't meant for certain jobs)

I actually agree with pretty much all of what you're saying.  In my initital post I kind of alluded to many of the same things (a company is going to find ways to label a decision differently, individuals bring about change more than the government, etc.)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding a great deal about this.  Obviously a lot people have mentioned it's incredibly hard to win a descrimination suit, and this only protects preference and indentity.  I just worry that that's not going to stop other complaints and suits from happening.

I understand that you went to extreme examples to drive home your point. You mention throughout the thread things like not hiring jocks if you're a hipster company and all those similar examples. Obviously, a company should have autonomy to select people with the personalities and interests that best suit their image and what they're trying to sell and/or do.

But identity and gender are not things that, in my opinion, a company should be able to indicate as a reason not to hire or to fire someone. Hence the protected status. And it's all subjective, of course. Why are race, sex, religion, age, handicap and national origin protected but political beliefs are not? Someone drew the line when the law was originally passed and now we're just looking to adjust that line.

Like I said, even if you are fired for a reason that would fall under protected status, proving that would be pretty difficult. It's only when statistics start to look crazy that companies start having to worry about those kinds of things (like if a company is 98% white and then fire the only black guy.) The thing is, you can't really use statistics like that in reference to trans or even gay people because they're such a small percentage of many communities that a company could legitimately just never encounter a trans person to hire. 

I think the main circumstance where a trans or gay person would encounter a scenario where they have a legitimate grievance under this law would be if, say, a person transitions (or comes out as gay/lesbian/bi etc) after having the job for several years and then, suddenly, their boss doesn't like their work output after previously having no issues and fires them. That would warrant investigation, in my opinion. But I don't think that would be a bad standard, do you?

[Wes Mantooth]

(02-27-2021, 03:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the main circumstance where a trans or gay person would encounter a scenario where they have a legitimate grievance under this law would be if, say, a person transitions (or comes out as gay/lesbian/bi etc) after having the job for several years and then, suddenly, their boss doesn't like their work output after previously having no issues and fires them. That would warrant investigation, in my opinion. But I don't think that would be a bad standard, do you?

I'm just going to address this last part (not that the rest isn't worth it, but just to make my reply easier to read)

I actually compltely agree with you.  I don't think that's a bad standard at all.  If a person is in a job, transitions, and continues to do the exact same job and at the exact same level, with no loss to their employer, then that 100% deserves an investigation.

I know we're kind of going in circles here, and I'm going to repeat myself, but I just worry that there's going to be lots of complaints and lawsuits, either threatened or filed, that will not always be so cut and dry. 

Either people will look to take advantage of the situation, or they'll be unable to realize that their own situation is more complicated and extends beyond their sexueal preference or indentity alone, which is what I was trying to say with the uses of apperance and personality.

Like, there can be good reasons that while a company could have any number of gay/trans people potentially working for them, some in particular are not great fits.  (No different than any other race or gender)

Now, in a perfect world the people in my example would realize this, lawyers will realize this, and any coverage would understand this.  But I just don't think that's the way it's going to work for some people.

People will default to homophobia as the cause rather than legitimate reasoning.  Lawyers will take cases just on the hopes of a settlement.  Coverage will occur because it's a hot button issue, and the person who felt discriminated against may be clamoring for attention more than actual justice.

Of course, everything I said could all be wrong too, that this doesn't change much at all, and really only applies to situations like the one you describe (perfectly reasonable).