Browse By

Does Your Representative Oppose Hiring Discrimination?

In these days of frequent, positive depictions of homosexuality in popular media, it might seem that the USA is moving beyond discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals. Yet, it’s still legal for people to be fired from their jobs for no other reason than that they aren’t heterosexual. Media depictions don’t create equality. Legislation does.

Two days ago, legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives that would end job discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It’s H.R. 3017, and it has 117 cosponsors, in addition to its author, Barney Frank.

In these days of economic recession, with unemployment figures at new highs, it’s outrageous that capable American workers can be thrown out of their jobs just because of the way that they prefer to get sexual pleasure in their private time. Make sure that your U.S. Representative is on the list of cosponsors. I’ve uploaded a quick page of cosponsors – because the bill is so new that there is not yet a permanent link to the list of cosponsors at the Library of Congress. Check the list, and if your representative is not there, make a telephone call asking why – (202) 224-3121.

17 thoughts on “Does Your Representative Oppose Hiring Discrimination?”

  1. Jacob says:

    I cant find a link to exactly what this bill says. It is not loaded on the federal page yet. How do you know you support it? Have you seen it somewhere, if so please tell me where…

    1. Jacob says:

      I know something made you decide this was a good piece of legislation. tell us where you found it before it was even posted on the federal page. I would like to know so that I can be a more informed citizen. Surely you dont like it because of the name and the sponser. There has to be more depth then that…

      1. Jim says:

        Peregrin’s on the road, so he can’t answer your question, but I can give you an indication of what his answer might be based on what I know. First, before bills are available on Thomas, their text is often available in the Congressional Record as members of Congress go to the floor to introduce them. Second, bill text can be posted and described by representatives on their individual pages. Third, often pieces of legislation have been introduced in previous congresses and are being re-introduced to the current congress. There are three possible reasons for you why Peregrin might know in detail about the substance of the bill before a permanent link is available on Thomas. Like I said, Peregrin’s on the road and can’t answer, but you could check each possibility to see which applies here.

      2. Peregrin Wood says:

        I support this legislation because of its conceptual merit: It grants equality under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Why would someone support discrimination and oppose the Constitution, Jacob?

        I don’t understand how you can wonder why I support the legislation when I write, “it’s outrageous that capable American workers can be thrown out of their jobs just because of the way that they prefer to get sexual pleasure in their private time.” I think that’s an adequate description of my motivation.

        1. Jacob says:

          Thanks! It is posted now so I can read it but I have to say that if I dont trust how good a bill sounds. I want to actually read the bill before I think its good or bad. There are A LOT of unconsitutional things that are hidden in good sounding bills. There are a lot of sneacky reps that try to pass things off that I wouldnt vote for otherwise and there are religious ramifications as well in this particular case. I am for equal rights but I am not for a law that will mandate hiring at religous places such as churches. I think that would violate the 1st ammendment stating that no laws can be based regulating the freedom of religon. This bill does pass my test after I have had the chance to view it. Peregrin just has more faith in his reps then I do…

  2. randy ray haugen says:

    i’m all for gay rights, but,it’s outrageous that capable
    american workers can be thrown out of their jobs just
    because of the way they prefer to get recreational pleasure in their privite lifes. i’m referring to drug testing and the prohibition of marihuana. why would
    anyone support this discrimination. it’s happening every day and in greater numbers than anyone wants to acknowledge. yes! gay rights legislation, but what about the millions of pot smokers already! have we no rights, no voice, no legislation. peregrin, will you speak to the constitutional rights to privacy concerning substances injested, in their privite time, as much as a month previously? is drug testing unconstitutional or what?

    1. Jacob says:

      Compairing something illegal and rights to do what is illegal is seperate then something that is legal but discriminated against… There are also ramifications to drugs that are seperate. If a man has sex with a man and comes to work in the factory with me nothing changes. he ca still do his job well. If a pot smoker comes in buzzed he can kill people due to the effects of the drug. Same reason you cant come in drunk. the testing keeps people safe and is not unconsitutional because you willing submit to it. You dont have to take it. If they force you to take it then the story changes….

  3. Kevin says:

    “If a pot smoker comes in buzzed he can kill people due to the effects of the drug. Same reason you cant come in drunk.”

    except that a pot smoker who is not stoned can still be forced to submit to a test that will tell if he smoked pot last week. do you do that for beer?

    “you don’t have to take it..” and you don’t have to eat or pay rent either… funny how many choose to do so..

    1. Jacob says:

      1. There are plenty of jobs that dont require drug tests.
      2. When you work in a bank they check your credit report. They are hiring you, they get to chose what qualifications are necessary. Also, I used to work around heavy machinary and yes, they can and do make people pee in cups randomly to check for alchol content.
      3. When you chose to break the law you deal with the consequences…

  4. Kevin says:

    ” they can and do make people pee in cups randomly to check for alchol content.”

    and if they find the slightest trace from last week bbq?

    and if we hadn’t broken the law we would still be an english colony….

    1. Jacob says:

      Yoy are right. We broke the English law and payed for it with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. In that case if all you have to pay is the cost of picking a job with no drug tests then you should consider yourself lucky.

  5. randy ray haugen says:

    thanks for the discourse to both jacob and kevin.
    only jacob, correct me if i’m wrong , but wasn’t homosexual activity a crime a short time ago, even in this country (u.s.a.).it’s not illegal to be gay
    today is only because someone fought for the right. i think they still stone people for their sexual behaviors in some countries. so, there’s still a ways to go.
    cudos to barney frank. the rights of pot smokers and the persecution they face may pale in comparison, but if
    you’ve lost your job, if you must keep your privite life hidden and be forced to live a lie… we need a barney frank.

  6. Jacob says:

    Why stop at pot? Meth users are persecuted then as well. What about cocaine addicts? If you are going to say its ok for one group why stop there? What about mushrooms? They are natural. What about payote? It is natural. What are the rules to the game? If you are going to go way out there and call this persecution you need to be able to answer these… At least gays can say it is geneticaly coded. I disagree with them but they have a leg to stand on. What do pot smokers have? Its a lifestyle choice to smoke an illegal drug…

  7. Kevin says:

    Jacob, I don’t know why you think its okay to fire people because they had a drink or smoked a bowl last week at the bbq.

    and your facts seem uncertain.

    “The total American military casualty figure was therefore as high as 50,000.”

    The war on people who use non-prescription, non-alcoholic, non-tobacco drugs is immoral, wastefull and ineffective.

    We should all work within our system to end this failed policy. And work outside the system to protect our fellow Americans targeted in this unjust war.

  8. Kevin says:

    and your latest post is a clear example of limited thinking. If all those things were legal and regulated we would all be better off.

  9. Jacob says:

    How? If you tell me legalizing meth is a good thing I am going to put you in the idiot catagory. People die from meth. Not just some people, or its possible that you could. No, if you keep using it uou WILL die. How is that make things better? I am at a loss for words that people actually believe that crap!

  10. randy ray haugen says:

    jacob, jacob. i do beleive that they have “geneticaly” coded addictve traits as well as homosexual traits. so, to say gays can’t help it, but drug users can simply give it up or find a new (more suitible)(i think they’ve started testing ditch diggers) job, is just not right.
    the drug war has caused far greater harm than it has done good. the death tolls from illegal drug abuse pales in comparison with the legal drugs. speaking of idiot lunacy, creating criminals out of ordinary people for recreation during their “privite time” is as lunatic as making criminals out of people with uncontrolable addictive urges. they need health care not drug wars. jacob, i’m not sure your arguments have a leg to stand on.

    p.s. sorry i’m so late at reply. hope you scan back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!