I'm wondering two things:
One. Why they chose that exact wording for the bill in the first place.
And number two. When are they going to pass ERA?

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

On a general note, I'm always amused by people who claim to be for "equality", but then have endless criticism for the legislation involved to achieve it.

Moving on...


Suppose Janet interviews John for a job.
John doesn't tell Janet if he's gay.
Janet refuses to hire John because she think he's gay.

Whether or not he is ACTUALLY gay is irrelevant to the discrimination at hand. She shouldn't get a free pass for discriminating just because John may actually be straight.
Whereas if you leave out the "perceived" part, you could actually legally discriminate against a person NOT for their actual sexual orientation, but what you think it is...


Very good question.
I remember when I was younger and I first learned about its history. I was shocked that it hadn't been passed yet.

Well then it should be that way for race and religion as well. I know for a fact I have been discriminated against because someone thought I was Mexican. But no law I knew of prohibited that. Similarly many people have assumed I was Jewish, and even said snide things they thought would hurt my feelings.

What I want to ask now is although this sounds wrong, how can someone prove someone else thinks you're gay? I can say from the above experiences, no one comes out and says the words. You just kind of KNOW. But that wouldn't stand up in court.

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

That was my whole point on the word "perception"...

Obviously, if an employer said it outright, perception doesn't come into play...

But if the gay guy believes it's due to what HE feels are indications, it ends up going before a court and have them get to vote on the employer's actions...

Which, of course, might not mean anything, but would you want the potential ruination of your business left up to a jury's interpretation of your actions?...

I know I wouldn't...

And even if it never ends up in court, just the mere presence of this bill is saying that employer must now walk on eggshells around gay people...

There's an old story about Howard Cosell...

During a football game, he said "Look at that monkey run."...

Well...the guy running was black...

All hell was breaking loose UNTIL OTHER PEOPLE, INCLUDING BLACK PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM, told everybody that Cosell calls a lot of people "monkeys"...including many white people AND his own grandchildren...

They even had him on video of him calling a white guy "monkey"...

That's the perfect case of people rendering someone guilty until innocent...If that happened 20 years later, Sharpton would've "Imus-ed" him...

Notice how Cosell automatically became the "defendant" simply because of what othr people INTERPRETED?...Now HIS innocence had to be proven...

That's what employer will go through now...Even if there's no case or the case gets dismissed, any media reports will automatically hurt the company or the individual...Zero dollars could've been lost...even the employer could be totally vindicated!!!...

But the damage is done...Look at what the Duke/rape case guys had to go through...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

You claim "it works like this"...

Got an example?

Cause quite frankly, I think the whole example you give is out to lunch.

"Manly" is not "sexual orientation".
"Outdoorsy" is not "sexual orientation".
I would be against anybody who tried to argue that Richard Simmons is being discriminated on basis of "sexual orientation" because he wasn't wanted for a Brawnie commercial.
I would think that should be self evident.

Your whole argument could even be applied towards gender discrimination, but somehow I don't see that happening either.

As always, plenty of imagined problems trying to stall out legislation to prevent documented discrimination...

Yes. It should.
I honestly do not know how the laws are actually written.


To answer your question, it would probably have to come from some stupid statement. Some people have been fired with a clear statement as to the reason why they were fired.

Like this company...

"Darden Restaurants is going to court to try and get Cook County's (Illinois) human rights ordinance -- which prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and other categories, in matters of employment, housing, public accommodations and credit transactions -- declared unconstitutional. Their action comes in response to an order from the Cook County Human Rights Commission that they reinstate a Gay employee who was repeatedly ridiculed and eventually fired because of his sexual orientation.
The restaurant is not trying to claim that it did not discriminate - it is acknowledging that it *did* discriminate, and that civil rights laws which prevent them from acting on their bigotry are unconstitutional!

Gays & Lesbians Need Not Apply - 08/07/98 - Gay/Lesbian Issues

I would think that SHOULD be self evident, too...

But if your an employer, do YOU want that decision to be left up to a jury?...Do YOU want the possible future of your business to be decided whether or not it continues to exist by people from the general public?...

What if the defendant is an oil csubsidiary or some other business that gets black eyes from the public on a weekly basis...Do you think a jury's not thinking "They're rich...give the plantiff his cash...That company sucks anyway."...

If you were to take a poll of woman who felt there was a "perceived" discrimination against them in their job but they didn't take legal action, I'm sure you'd come up with a 30%-40% range...Even if half of them were to have their "perceptions" proven(and I think they should've taken legal action), that's still 1-in-5 women FALSELY living their life thinking their employer did something wrong when they didn't...and possibly making public accusations which harm the company...Even a mention to their fellow coworkers or ex-coworkers does that...

Your on the other side, so you don't see the culture of fear placed upon the community in general knowing one false step is wrong (which it should be), but also one false PERCEIVED step is now considered wrong, too...Which it should not be...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I think you are misreading the bill.

Perhaps I am reading your posts wrong but you seem to be under the impression that the discriminatory act is what is modified by the word," perceived", when, in fact, what is modified by the word, "perceived", is "sexual orientation."

In other words the employer must be shown to actually engage in a discriminatory practice based on his/her perception of the complainant's sexual orientation. But it does not matter if the complainant is actually of that orientation.

So if Mr. Doe fires Ms. Roe because he thinks she is a lesbian then he would be liable even if Ms. Roe is actually heterosexual.

But if Mr. Doe fires Ms. Roe because she is late every day but she sues because she thinks he doesn't like lesbians then he is not liable.

I'm not misreading it...What you've said is true and I've agreed ith it...

But here's the issue...

This is good when the lines are CLEARLY DRAWN and evidence is obvious...

But when it's NOT, the onus is on the owner based on nothing more than the accusers accusation...then you end up in a situation like the Duke rape case...

This does three things...

1) Gets your name negatively in the paper...Just like you've stated that "he is not liable", the smear on him and his company is already firmly in place...Business goes down...

Even if "Mrs. Roe" is lying out of her teeth...In fact, this could be a MOTIVATION to smear "Mr. Doe" and/or his company for OTHER reasons...

This is a tactice that's been used by other "protected classes" and wrongfully so...This is because safeguards aren't included in the legislation preventing abuse...

2) When the situation is not obvious, the decidion is left up to the courts...

Would YOU want a jury to "interpret" your actions?...If they're wrong, you're dead...even if you were completely innocent, they just destroyed your business and reputation...

3) The atmosphere that this can be USED against employers makes every HR department cringe...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

__________________
Jesus Was A Liberal

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist