Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Rolls Back Non-Discrimination Protections For Gay State Workers Christina Bellantoni | February 17, 2010, 3:22PM
Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination, thanks to a little-noticed change made by new Gov. Bob McDonnell.
McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.
It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a "fair and inclusive" administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy - and sexual orientation.
McDonnell's office sent along this memo from his chief of staff that they have suggested to reporters prevents any and all discrimination. It reads, in part:
Quote:
It shall be the policy of the office of the Governor to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, encourage excellence by rewarding achievement based on merit, and prohibit discrimination for any reason. Hiring, promotion, discipline and termination of employees shall be based on qualifications, performance and results.
But the LGBT trade press sees it as a "sad" development that strips state workers of protections that they had under the last administration.
Kaine declined to comment through spokesman Hari Sevugan, who said McDonnell should be "ashamed" for the new policy.
Sevugan said:
Quote:
It says a lot about the Republican party that they would anoint as their 'rising star' someone who in 2010 is actually stripping away from Americans legal protections against discrimination. Bob McDonnell is proving his critics right. He said he'd focus on creating jobs, not social issues. But, one of his first acts as Governor was to make it easier for a fellow citizen to be denied a job and he did so as an adherent to a right-wing ideology that allows for such discriminatory behavior. McDonnell's decision is just plain wrong in any context, but especially so in this economic climate.
In another development, the Washington Post reported that a measure passed the Democratic-controlled state Senate that would protect state workers from discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. The bill is all-but-certain to fail in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
And considering his order, it sucks being more than just gay:
McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
The piece you quoted is an executive order. The "no discrimination for any reason" is a policy memo. Which carries more weight?
If I'm not mistaken, specifically citing sexual orientation puts the burden of proof on the employer vs. the employee. At the very least, it makes filing complaints easier for the employee.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
punkdavid wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were other policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
Aha. Thank you.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
How often does your scenario happen, if at all?
Outright statements? Or people getting passed over b/c they're gay?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
How often does your scenario happen, if at all?
That's not the point, at all. The real question is how often are people fired or not hired simply because they're gay WITHOUT a word being said about it? Whether it can be proven or not, why shouldn't a gay person have the same RIGHT to challenge such a decision as a person who feels they've been discriminated against based on race or gender or religion?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
How often does your scenario happen, if at all?
That's not the point, at all. The real question is how often are people fired or not hired simply because they're gay WITHOUT a word being said about it? Whether it can be proven or not, why shouldn't a gay person have the same RIGHT to challenge such a decision as a person who feels they've been discriminated against based on race or gender or religion?
Maybe because I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world but this is general a big who cares for me. Hooters won't hire me as a waiter, big deal. I wouldn't get all upset if some establishment with a primarily gay clientelle didn't hire me. It would be nice if no discrimination based on sexual orientation was included but I can see bigger battles to fight. Especially given that you can't even say that it's happening. Rather than making all these subsets of people, I prefer the policy memo statement of "no discrimination for any reason".
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
]Maybe because I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world but this is general a big who cares for me. Hooters won't hire me as a waiter, big deal. I wouldn't get all upset if some establishment with a primarily gay clientelle didn't hire me. It would be nice if no discrimination based on sexual orientation was included but I can see bigger battles to fight. Especially given that you can't even say that it's happening. Rather than making all these subsets of people, I prefer the policy memo statement of "no discrimination for any reason".
If it's so unimportant, then why was it apparently so important to the new governor to remove that statement then?
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
]Maybe because I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world but this is general a big who cares for me. Hooters won't hire me as a waiter, big deal. I wouldn't get all upset if some establishment with a primarily gay clientelle didn't hire me. It would be nice if no discrimination based on sexual orientation was included but I can see bigger battles to fight. Especially given that you can't even say that it's happening. Rather than making all these subsets of people, I prefer the policy memo statement of "no discrimination for any reason".
If it's so unimportant, then why was it apparently so important to the new governor to remove that statement then?
I couldn't tell you that. But at what granular level does specifying a subset of people get stupid? Should it be specifically legislated that you can't discriminate against one eyed, peg legged pirates? If the goal is no discrimination, shouldn't that be the legislation (like in the policy memo)?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
How often does your scenario happen, if at all?
That's not the point, at all. The real question is how often are people fired or not hired simply because they're gay WITHOUT a word being said about it? Whether it can be proven or not, why shouldn't a gay person have the same RIGHT to challenge such a decision as a person who feels they've been discriminated against based on race or gender or religion?
Maybe because I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world but this is general a big who cares for me. Hooters won't hire me as a waiter, big deal. I wouldn't get all upset if some establishment with a primarily gay clientelle didn't hire me. It would be nice if no discrimination based on sexual orientation was included but I can see bigger battles to fight. Especially given that you can't even say that it's happening. Rather than making all these subsets of people, I prefer the policy memo statement of "no discrimination for any reason".
You can throw out stupid strawmen like Hooters and gay bars, but the fact is that people aren't hired as lawyers and clerks and office mangers and waiters at Denny's because of their sexual orientation. And it's wrong.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
How often does your scenario happen, if at all?
That's not the point, at all. The real question is how often are people fired or not hired simply because they're gay WITHOUT a word being said about it? Whether it can be proven or not, why shouldn't a gay person have the same RIGHT to challenge such a decision as a person who feels they've been discriminated against based on race or gender or religion?
Maybe because I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world but this is general a big who cares for me. Hooters won't hire me as a waiter, big deal. I wouldn't get all upset if some establishment with a primarily gay clientelle didn't hire me. It would be nice if no discrimination based on sexual orientation was included but I can see bigger battles to fight. Especially given that you can't even say that it's happening. Rather than making all these subsets of people, I prefer the policy memo statement of "no discrimination for any reason".
You can throw out stupid strawmen like Hooters and gay bars, but the fact is that people aren't hired as lawyers and clerks and office mangers and waiters at Denny's because of their sexual orientation. And it's wrong.
I agree it's wrong. But trying to legislate acceptance at a granular level is stupid. The "no discrimination at all" policy memo makes sense. Creating subset sof people you are and aren't allowed to discriminate against is a waste of time and money. And how is what I put forward a straw arguement, when you have no proof that what you suggest is happening is actually occurring.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
Wait, why do they need specific protection from discrimination? Just asking.
If they don't have specific protection, the employer can outright say, "I don't want any queers working for me," and either not hire the person, or fire them. They would have no recourse for wrongful termination unless there were otehr policies in place to protect against any kind of arbitrary or capricious hiring and firing practices, which usually do not exist.
How often does your scenario happen, if at all?
That's not the point, at all. The real question is how often are people fired or not hired simply because they're gay WITHOUT a word being said about it? Whether it can be proven or not, why shouldn't a gay person have the same RIGHT to challenge such a decision as a person who feels they've been discriminated against based on race or gender or religion?
Maybe because I live in one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world but this is general a big who cares for me. Hooters won't hire me as a waiter, big deal. I wouldn't get all upset if some establishment with a primarily gay clientelle didn't hire me. It would be nice if no discrimination based on sexual orientation was included but I can see bigger battles to fight. Especially given that you can't even say that it's happening. Rather than making all these subsets of people, I prefer the policy memo statement of "no discrimination for any reason".
You can throw out stupid strawmen like Hooters and gay bars, but the fact is that people aren't hired as lawyers and clerks and office mangers and waiters at Denny's because of their sexual orientation. And it's wrong.
I agree it's wrong. But trying to legislate acceptance at a granular level is stupid. The "no discrimination at all" policy memo makes sense. Creating subset sof people you are and aren't allowed to discriminate against is a waste of time and money. And how is what I put forward a straw arguement, when you have no proof that what you suggest is happening is actually occurring.
First of all, to your there is no proof this is occurring comment, I respond, "Nigga, please."
Secondly, saying "no discrimination at all" is what is stupid. There SHOULD be discrimination in hiring, otherwise it would be first come, first served. THAT is stupid.
You HAVE to lay out which criteria are NOT PERMITTED BASES for discrimination. The human mind is a discrimination machine. You have to give it rules in a society.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
