Discriminatory Nondiscrimination
by Eric Rockwell
On November 7th, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill that would protect gay people from workplace discrimination. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) would make it illegal for employers to hire, fire or otherwise discriminate on the basis of an individual’s “actual or perceived” sexual orientation.
My initial reaction is to oppose such legislation on the principle that individuals, including employers, must be left free to make their own decisions on how they will live their lives and run their businesses. While I may find it repugnant for an employer to exclude gay people, I respect his right to do so. Employers must be left free to hire and fire as they see fit.
On the other hand, there is good reason to support this legislation. Because of existing laws banning employment discrimination based on race and gender, it seems unfair not to include sexual orientation. While I disagree with the premise of antidiscrimination laws, which confuse legitimate rights with positive rights, they are nevertheless already on the books. And if one group of people is given a protection, it seems unjust to withhold it from another group.
What is the proper position to take? Considering fundamentals, it is best to stand against such legislation on the grounds that it is a violation of individual rights. Considering it in context, however, it seems better to support it on the basis of equal protection.
But in terms of equal protection, adding sexual orientation to the list doesn’t begin to address the inequities inherent in antidiscrimination laws. You’d have to add many other groups in order to correct the injustice. If homosexuals get protection, so should sado-masochists, swingers, and serial monogamists. After all, their sexual lifestyles have no bearing on their ability in the workplace. Having added these groups, we can rejoice in seeing our civil rights laws expanded. Let freedom ring! But wait, why stop there? Why not have overweight nondiscrimination and underweight nondiscrimination and ugly, odd-looking, green-eyed, albino, bald and cross-eyed nondiscrimination?
Clearly, adding various groups to the list incrementally would go on indefinitely. There is no way to make current antidiscrimination laws consistent, except to be rid of them altogether.
For more than thirty years, Democrats have hoped to outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians. 1974 marked the beginning of the ENDA, when Bella Abzug and Ed Koch proposed to add “sexual orientation” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That was defeated, as was a similar proposal made in 1994. The recent vote in the House of 235 to 184 in favor of this bill was due in part to a move on the part of Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and others who removed language from the bill which would have included transsexual and transgender individuals.
The supposed crusaders for equality and fairness showed their true colors by stabbing these people in the back, selling them out in order to win a political victory. This tactic clearly illustrates the lack of integrity and the intellectual dishonesty of the bill’s advocates. In rejecting less popular groups from their legislation, they are showing that they are the very embodiment of bigotry they claim to be trying to fight.
This bill is called a Nondiscrimination Act, yet it supports, with the force of law, discrimination. The real victims of this policy are not the transsexuals that were jettisoned from the bill; the victims of this legalized discriminatory policy are employers who might not want to hire gay people. We hear pleas for tolerance, yet this law and its supporters advocate intolerance: intolerance for people’s differences of opinion; intolerance for people’s prejudice; intolerance for people’s stupidity. What would be truly tolerant would be a willingness to allow employers to make their own decisions about their own business.
This law obviously isn’t geared to rational employers who want to hire the best workers. It is geared to the irrational, hate-filled employer who wants to hire based on personal biases. This governmental protection will turn his bigotry into a nasty little secret he holds, enabling me to work for him without ever knowing the truth about him. As an employee, I want to know that I am working for a person who accepts gay people willingly, without coercion from the government. Nondiscrimination legislation keeps that important information out of reach, making it possible for me to unknowingly work for and endorse a homophobic employer.
As with race and gender, using sexual orientation as a criteria for hiring isn’t wrong in all cases. I may one day want to be free to hire and fire on the basis of sexual orientation. Maybe I’ll open a gay counseling service, a gay magazine, or a gay bar, and maybe I think it would be best to have a gay staff for my business. Under this legislation, I could be sued for failing to hire a heterosexual man. After all, I’m refusing to hire someone because of his “actual or perceived” sexual orientation. I should be free to hire an all-gay staff if I so choose. But who wants to take this freedom away from me? Barney Frank, of all people!
Discuss this Article (12 messages)
|
