Are national gay rights groups abandoning employment rights?

[dsc]

Recently several civil rights groups met with Democratic Senators. If the account of that meeting is to be believed, ENDA didn't come up. Probably a majority of LGBT employees work for companies or in jurisdictions that ban discrimination on the basis of orientation. For that reason maybe national groups are starting to feel that ENDA isn't important. I admit to not knowing but I am beginning to wonder. It seems our leaders never speak of ENDA anymore. I happen to think that a national ENDA law should be on the top tier of our goals. Without economic security what good are marriage rights? Maybe I am reading too much into this but I do wonder. After all we have two regions of the country without a single state that protects LGBT workers from discrimination. Should ENDA remain a nationa gay rights priority?

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=5810 link to article.

[Democrats_win]

1. Institutionalized discrimination against LGBT people makes it important.

LGBT people need economic security to withstand the institutional discrimination such as no Spousal Social Security benefits, no insurance for your partner etc.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Marriage has the spotlight at the moment

I don't think there is any "abandonment" of equal employment or other legislative issues. But right now, there are marriage cases pending in several state Supreme Courts with a few more about to be argued, the rightards are making hay over Vermont and Massachussetts (and hopefully, very soon, Washington) and bigots using fear tacticts and outright hate-mongering to pass discriminatory legislation and constitutional amendments the like of which America has not seen since the backlash against Reconstruction. It behooves us to take advantage of current events to shape the national dialog and direct it towards equality, even if that means back-burnering issues that we might see as more basic or more important.

[kweerwolf]

2. Some are still fighting for employment rights

Here in Missouri the statewide organization PROMO held a summit last fall with other LGBT organizations around the state. One of the priorities for the next five years is passage of MoNA, the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act.

While the spotlight has been on marriage equality lately, I think there is still a need to pursue employment rights. The last two jobs I have held provided employment protection for LGBT employees (heck, my current one offers domestic partnership rights ... if only I had a domestic partner now), but I lost the job I held before the last two for being gay. That issue still resonnates with me and I want to make sure no one else has to go through it.

Personally, I feel that employment issues are of greater importance than the whole "marriage" debate because I think the vast majority of the LGBT community work while it's still a minority who are interested in marriage equality for themselves (although most would agree having the right to marry would be a good thing). Even if a same-sex couple could marry legally, lacking the economic stability that comes with employment rights could be a destabilizing force for couples.

[dsc]

3. I am a teacher in the South

so trust me I know how important those rights are. I am reasonably sure I would be fired if it became known I was gay. Not totally sure, but reasonably sure. I just am wondering if the rest of the community agrees.

[bliss_eternal]

4. I was discussing this issue

w/a friend that works for a local video film rental chain. She informed me that when she started with them (several years ago) they did offer benefits for families of gay and lesbian employees. She said the company has changed hands since the time she started with them, and they've changed that, and no longer offer such benefits for partners, kids, etc.

She's pretty pissed, too--apparently many of their employees in management are of the gay community (including my friend). She's looking for another job.

[sui generis]

6. first of all there is nothing in law that defines "gay"

you are of a sexual orientation, and even that is subjective.

So the only laws we can ask for are those that protect sexual orientation, which correctly protects heterosexuals too.

If you want to bring it up, then don't call it a "gay rights" law. Bring it up in the context of "I have business and I don't want any heterosexuals working for me. Can I fire someone for being straight?"

The answer is yes, in most cases. Our job is to make them understand that sexual orientation is not a gay issue, and that they had better pay attention before someone like sui generis really does get pissed off and fire all his heterosexual employees one day to make a point. I might just do it anyway.

[dsc]

7. I wonder if you actually read my post before you replied

I checked and I did write that I was wondering about laws which covered sexual orientation the only use of the word gay was in gay rights groups, which is what they often call themselves. That said clearly the laws would go both ways though it would be far less likely that heterosexuals would need the protection.

[sui generis]

8. sorry dsc I did not read the link first

this has been a rant of mine for a long time, a long time before most people started getting it.

I disagree with you on "far less likely".

If there are no protections for sexual orientation, then there is nothing keeping a straight boss from firing his employees for being straight so he doesn't have to pay them unemployment or pension or severance, and it's bound to happen sooner or later that some unscrupulous dick does that.

[Meeker Morgan]

9. What is needed is a clarification ...

... of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based on sex.

A modest bit of additional legislation would be fine.

This directly affects more people than the marriage question and is at least as important.