Several quarters are up in arms over this story. David Hill was fired from the Brentwood Holiday Inn because he is gay. I’m very sorry he lost his job. That sucks. But, I’m glad the law allows this. Basic property rights, contract rights* and the free flow of labor are far more important than protecting an individual from short term pain.
All non-discrimination laws, whether they be based upon sex, race, ethnicity, disability, religion or any other category, should be eliminated, except as they relate to governmental entities.
*I am ignoring the issue of the employee handbook which may have been violated due to a lack of information on the specifics.
January 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm
So firing someone because of an identity characteristic is ok? Like you’re ok if I decide to can you solely because you’re male? Or explicitly because you’re a Christian? I suggest you go to the Tennessee legislature and propose that, in just that way, and see how far you get. This sounds like a good idea to you because you don’t figure you will ever be on the firing end of discrimination, I reckon. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be so eager to give away other people’s earned privileges. Both the legislative and judicial branches have decided that US workers’ (all 270 million of them) interest in being evaluated on performance rather than identity outweighs the property interests of an individual employer. If your vision of contract rights comes from the antebellum period, when people could be owned and sold, I guess I could see where you’re coming from However, the substance of contract/property law and thus labor law changed pretty dramatically after that little dust-up in the 1860s, which is as it should be.
January 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Yes, firing someone over an identity characteristic is okay with me. That’s called freedom. If I own a company, I should be able to choose who works for me and whom I serve as clients, with no restrictions. Likewise, any one should be able to fire me or refuse to allow me in their business for any reason. That’s freedom.
Of course I don’t expect the legislature or the courts to repeal anti-discrimination laws. Too many people value their special status as victim for that to be politically viable.
As for slavery, that pretty much is the opposite of what I’m talking about. I’m advocating freedom on both sides of the equation. You can quit for any reason, regardless of how much your employer needs labor or your particular skills and you can be fired, regardless of how much you need or think you deserve that job.
January 10, 2009 at 12:58 pm
And, yes, when I was forced to come out to my boss, I was keenly aware that I could be fired. I didn’t want to be, but recognized and appreciated that I could be.
January 10, 2009 at 2:26 pm
You think that sexual orientation is a valid reason for someone to lose their job but you get upset when people say that you LCR types are “self-hating?”
January 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Labor markets are just that, markets for labor. I exchange my labor for my employer’s money (and other benefits). Neither side of the equation should be required to make a trade they do not want.
Btw, LCR supports ENDA. So, your comment is a bit of a non sequitur.
January 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I’m sympathetic to the reasoning of your argument, Mike. However, until I see a serious effort to repeal ALL such laws I fully support ENDA. Well, I do hesitate at “gender identity” since that’s seems like such a big loophole to me that one could drive a truck through it! Still, it’s the hypocrisy of the religious right that has swayed me on this. Perhaps passage of ENDA will spark the debate the Right claims to want on these kinds of laws.
January 10, 2009 at 4:40 pm
John, thanks for stopping by. I’ve read a number of people who’ve taken that position. But, it is one I am uncomfortable with. My problem with is that saying, “It’s wrong. It’s bad. I want it” doesn’t seem very principled to me.
January 13, 2009 at 7:31 am
Perhaps, perhaps not. Because I’m torn on this issue I go by what I observe and let me tell you, what I’m seeing from the religious right is enough to make me support ENDA. If I could see some consistency from the Right on this, as well as cutting out the deliberate “gay-baiting”, then perhaps I’ll give it more consideration. Until then, no thanks.
January 13, 2009 at 8:00 am
It sounds like you support it because you see discrimination. You would oppose it if it wasn’t needed. Am I mischaracterizing your position?
I view discrimination as something that should be legal because I don’t believe the government should interfere with my relationships, however wrong discrimination may be. Therefore I oppose ENDA and all other non-discrimination laws (except as they apply to government).
In addition, non-discrimination laws interfere with the free flow of labor and weaken the economy. With that view in mind, it seems selfish to me for any group to seek the special protection of non-discrimination laws.
January 13, 2009 at 10:06 am
In addition, non-discrimination laws interfere with the free flow of labor and weaken the economy.
The stats don’t really back that up. On average (though there are certainly outliers), businesses with greater diversity also see greater success. Greater success in business means a stronger, not weaker, economy.