Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Straight, white, male Christians are cool
I'm clearing on the 3WN mailbag today. Frequent commenter Sean alerts us that the American Family Association is fighting hard against HR 3128:
A handful of Representatives are trying to pass a national law to give special treatment to a group of people defined solely by their behavior.
They have introduced legislation in Congress which would make it illegal to discriminate against this group. As you already have figured out, the group they want special treatment for is homosexuals.
...Now these Congressmen, many of them practicing homosexuals, are trying to change the law to include "sexual orientation." Homosexuals are already protected against discrimination just as any other employee. What the Congressmen are asking for is special treatment for a group of people who can be identified only by their sexual behavior.
Here's the technical debate. 5 USC 2302(b) says:
Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority...
- discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment -
- on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as prohibited under section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16);
- on the basis of age, as prohibited under sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a);
- on the basis of sex, as prohibited under section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d));
- on the basis of handicapping condition, as prohibited under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791); or
- on the basis of marital status or political affiliation, as prohibited under any law, rule, or regulation;
- (10) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States;
Waxman's bill, the Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act affirms the sense of the Congress that homosexuals are protected from discrimination by (b)(10), but also adds homosexuals as a protected class under (b)(1).
Liberals say that homosexuality is not conduct that adversely affects performance, which is covered under (b)(10), so it doesn't matter that sexual orientation is not listed under (b)(1). Conservatives say it's not appropriate to offer protection for individual behavior.
Straight, white, male Christians of Western European descent are cool. As a baptized Presbyterian and confirmed Lutheran, I'm comfortable noting that we have accomplished a lot and have much to be proud of. We get in trouble, though, when we think that only straight, white, male Christians of Western European descent have something to offer. Traditionally, we tended to hire people more or less like us, which left everyone who wasn't straight, white, male, Christian, and of Western European descent left out.
We've made some progress in correcting that bias, but have a long way to go. It's illegal now to discriminate against someone who isn't white, isn't male, isn't Christian, and isn't of Western European descent. It might or might not be legal to discriminate against a homosexual.
Ultimately, the law doesn't need to change so much as attitudes toward homosexuality need to change. Still, homosexuals -- a discrete, insular minority -- merit the same protections as other protected classes.
The Religiously Correct say that we shouldn't protect individual behavior. We already -- and rightly -- do. The bar against discrimination against one's religious belief is not limited to what is in one's heart, but extends to their behavior. The bar against firing someone for believing in their God would be empty, indeed, if you could fire someone for attending church, wearing a yarmulke, adhering to a diet, or refusing to work on a day of rest.
In the end, though, the objection proves the need for protection. Some people don't want to work with homosexuals because they are homosexuals. Protection against discrimination is a regrettable necessity.
