Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay

[skywalker]

March 20, 2004

Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay


Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation."


Link

This is just wrong! Do civil rights for gays mean nothing at all to this President?

Related Stories:
http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2727185
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Mark

[Timber Loftis]

Well, since federal jobs, like most jobs, are "at will" employment, any reason for firing them that is not prohibited by law is acceptable. That includes firing them for being lazy, disagreeable, gay, or wearing bad clothes for that matter.

However, I highly suspect the gummint will be firing few gays other than those in the spotlight (based on judicial nomination, etc.).

And, yes, this does go against the things Bush has said about the need for gays to have legal rights.

[Jerr Conner]

At will?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: At will?

That means the supervisor can fire an employee at any time and for any reason...so long as the reason for termination is not expressly prohibited by law. In fact, the supervisor doesn't even have to give a reason for the termination other than "you're services are no longer needed". I've been "released" from a couple of jobs where the boss used that line.

North Carolina is also an "at will" or "right to work" state. Which basically means the employer can fire you for any reason they see fit.

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, "at Will" means that somebody named Will has to be in the room when you're fired.

[John D Harris]

If this is true it is just wrong, no way around it! IMHO. As I tell my employees I don't give a rats rear end what they do on their time, that's their business not mine as long as they show up and do the work they are getting paid for. I'm their employer not their MAMA, or husband. If their personal life gets in the way of work then we may have a problem.

[johnny]

Hip hip hooray for the land of the free. You're setting an excellent example for all of us.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Ahh, this is nothing. Theory is one thing, but wait for it to come into practice... if it does. I'm not a fan of the current administration, and I might think they're a little stupid, but they're not fools. They know that the instant a gay is fired they'll go straight to the courts if there isn't a solid reason for the firing. Hell, they might go to court even if there *is* a solid reason.
On the other hand... They remove gay rights and then say "Don't worry, we'll protect them." They want to be trusted to uphold the law if they feel like it? That doesn't sound right at all...

[john]

Just like the present admin. says to our guys in Iraq "Your doin a great job boys don't worry were all behind you" while they cut veterens benefits!

[Timber Loftis]

Based on Johnny's comments, let me clarify this:

Bloch, one of the gummint's lawyers, noted a possible FALLACY in federal training brochuers and programs where the materials represented to employees that they could not be fired for their sexual orientation. He was not so sure that was legally accurate. As a counselor, he had a duty to pull the info while he reviewed it for legal correctness.

Before he finished reviewing it, everyone in tarnation was calling him to the carpet for it. There was huge outcry by our elected officials. Even though he had a duty as a legal counselor to review the thing under the LAW, not under POLITICAL OPINION, everyone slammed him for doing it.

Turns out Bloch was right and the federal employment guidelines do not protect someone from being fired based on their sexuality.

Now, a lot of people are unhappy with this, but the answer is simple -- change the law if you don't like it.

No one, Bloch included, has advocated any sort of discrimination against gays or straights. In fact, everyone agrees that would be a Bad Thing (TM). However, in answer to the legal question, "Is sexuality discrimination on the list of claims we'll get sued for when somebody gets fired" the correct legal answer actually is "NO, not as the law stands."

So, this is not some conspiracy or Christian Coalition plot, this is not some effort to discriminate. This is not any loss of freedom in the "land of the free."

Johnny, I know the Netherlands may be different on this issue (being more gay-friendly), but I suspect that this would also be the legal answer in much of Europe. I suspect (though I am not certain) that specific laws have not been widely passed over there to specifically protect sexual orientation from descrimination. You probably have them in the Netherlands, and we have them in many states, and other countries may have them -- but I bet there's a better than 50% amount of "first world" areas where this is not a protected right in the employment context.