Why Should Being Gay Be A Sackable Offence In The Us?

[sp1814]

This is a bit of a convoluted story, but the gist seems to be that the Department of Justice is really going for this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-gay-sacked-fired-offence-homosexuality-doj-justice-department-a7969601.html

Why? Surely this doesn’t sit right with most people, no matter what their political persuasion.

Is there anyone on AB who thinks this is justified? Or reasonable? Or..,not mental?

[sp1814]

Let’s forget about the Trump inference - the most important question is the fact that the DoJ is arguing that gay people can legally be discriminated against in the workplace.

[ChillDoubt]

It is a stupid decision however, particularly in my workplace, anyone acting camper than Larry Grayson deserves a written warning, there's just no need for it......

[naomi24]

SP, this doesn’t resolve the issue but the thought occurs that unless an employee reveals his/her sexuality how would the employer know? I’ve never discussed my sexuality with anyone at work. Why would I? Why would anyone?

[Kromovaracun]

"unless an employee reveals his/her sexuality how would the employer know?"

Employers very often check social media these days as a process of vetting, where sometimes (given it's a personal page) relationship information is shown.

It's also very easy to get "outed" without really meaning to. For example if you wear a wedding ring, and someone politely asks about your husband/wife, and there's not really a way to respond without revealing that they are wrong. In other (rarer) instances which depend on context/profession, the content of your CV might also reveal it - e.g. if you have professional experience working for a charity related to gay rights, or if you conducted research about gay people. Everybody knows that people involved in such things in most cases tend to be gay people (as, obviously, they are the most interested), so it is a de facto outing.

So, loads of ways.

[-Talbot-]

I didn't set out to discredit Donald Zarda. I was looking for a bit of history on the case ... didn't find, how about you sp?

[jim360]

It depends on what you mean by "revealing your sexuality". If, say, at some work-related party, a woman introduced her husband or boyfriend or fiancee or male partner, then that would be implicitly "revealing your sexuality", would it not? Likewise introducing her female partner as a +1 would show her to be at the very least bisexual, even if it was never discussed some other way.

Or maybe it was found out inadvertently, because some other colleague saw you and your partner, and it became pretty obvious that you weren't just friends with this other person.

At any rate, it's obvious that you don't have to explicitly shout out loud that you are gay or hetero or whatever in order for that information to become known just through normal conversation, or normal social interactions, or whatever. In most cases no-one will care, of course, but when it does you would be pretty upset if the knowledge that you were gay was enough to cause your employer to fire you, to the point where you would have to take active steps to hide your sexuality, rather than just not really talking about it much.

[Kromovaracun]

Plus another point is that you don't technically need to "reveal" anything - the employer just needs to think you are, and if they sack you for it, that is (according to this post anyway) legal. And people who are homophobic enough to consider sacking someone over their prejudice (yes, they do exist) are not often discerning about how accurate their intuitions are in these things.

[naomi24]

Ah right. I didn’t think of social media, probably because, apart from AnswerBank, I don’t indulge in it. I think people who post details of their personal life anywhere on the internet are potty.

[jim360]

I don't think it's potty, but obviously it's important to be aware that what you post on the internet is usually available for all to see, and use how they will. Some people clearly don't appreciate that it's as public as all that. But as long as you are sensible then it's not necessarily that different to being overheard in a pub or some such.

[naomi24]

// it's not necessarily that different to being overheard in a pub or some such. //

Busy pub, Jim.

[jim360]

Well, whatever.

I'm obviously not saying that you have to be more open about your private life on social media, but it's a judgement call and it's possible to take sensible measures without feeling like you have to avoid any kind of discussion at all about who you are, and share stuff with friends that you might not otherwise be able to.

But, even that aside, as I pointed out there are clearly ways to learn someone's sexuality without them telling you so explicitly.

[jno]

Naomi, you've mentioned your husband on AB, as people often do. Are you sure you've never done so in the office? (Perhaps you don't work in an office, of course.) At any rate, that would give employers and colleagues alike the basis for reasonable assumptions about your sexuality, even though they may be quite wrong. "Discussing" it isn't necessary.

[sp1814]

Forget about social media - when you join most companies, you need to give emergency contact / next of kin details. You also need to provide details of your spouse for pension and (in some cases) death in service payments.

This is where companies, if this change in the law is ratified, could travel through their employee database, to identify gay members of staff.

[sp1814]

naomi24

Leaving that aside - can you imagine how difficult it would be for someone to constantly have to play the pronoun game in order to keep their job?

[naomi24]

SP, yes, I can imagine how difficult that might be.

[ludwig]

It doesn't make any sense that being gay could be a sackable offence, although nothing would surprise me from America at the moment.

Is that actually what's being suggested, or is it more about not being able to use it as defence against being sacked?

[Togo]

You have it there Ludwig, there are also issues with "visiting" your personal preferences volubly at every opportunity.

[naomi24]

Ludwig/Togo. That's the impression I get.

[ludwig]

// there are also issues with "visiting" your personal preferences volubly at every opportunity.//

Such as constantly telling everyone you're the only gay in the village. I see.

[Togo]

Lol Ludwig. Not sure you can say that anymore either. Everyone with a niche cause has to be part of a "protected characteristic minority" to remain onside now.